Colin Powell Endorses Obama

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Areal51
How's this? "26 Papers That Backed Bush in 2004 Move to Obama "


BARACK OBAMA (26)

CALIFORNIA
Long Beach Press Telegram (B): 85,595
Pasadena Star-News (B): 27,894
San Gabriel Valley Tribune (B): 40,051
The (Stockton) Record (B): 57,486
San Bernardino Sun (B): 54,315
Tri-Valley Herald (B): 29,759

COLORADO
The Denver Post (B): 225,193

CONNECTICUT
New Haven Register (B): 72,613

FLORIDA
Naples Daily-News (B): 66,272

ILLINOIS
Chicago Tribune (B): 541,663

INDIANA
Palladium-Item (Richmond) (B): 15,453

IOWA
Mason City Globe Gazette (B): 17,666

NEW JERSEY
Asbury Park Press (Neptune) (B): 140,882

NEW MEXICO
Las Cruces Sun-News (B): 21,341

NEW YORK
Daily News (B): 703,137

OHIO
Hamilton Journal-News (B): 19,432
The Repository (Canton) (B): 65,789
The Times-Reporter (New Philadelphia) (B): 22,428

OREGON
Yamhill Valley News-Register (McMinnville) (B): 10,921

PENNSYLVANIA
The Express-Times (Easton) (B): 44,561

TEXAS
Austin American-Statesman (B): 170,309
Houston Chronicle (B): 494,131

UTAH
The Salt Lake Tribune (B): 121,699

WASHINGTON
The Columbian (B): 44,623
Yakima Herald-Republic (B): 38,077

WISCONSIN
Wisconsin State Journal (Madison) (B): 87,930
www.editorandpublisher.com...

I suppose all of those newspapers backed Obama because he's Black, too?




Nobody is saying white people won't vote for a black guy with a white guy alternative, jeez man get it through your head, we have seen many whites voting for Obama merely because he IS black.

What we are seeing is that BLACKS, not news papers, not other agents or places or things but other BLACKS have by and large shown they won't vote for a white guy when their is a Black alternative and suggesting Colin Powel isn't politically savvy enough to know he has to come up with a better reason than I voted for Obama cuz he is a brotha!" is political suicide is naive and even more so to suggest WE see him that naive also.

Having said that, the best Powell could do then, is to give a substantive rational reason (other than race ) to predicate his decision to support Obama, and sadly, the only one he could come up with, was just more of the same we have already seen from those brainwashed by Obamamania, and that is he sends warm fuzzies up Powells leg or is inspirational transformational and words to that effect but NOTHING worthy of electing the most untested, unqualified, inexperienced candidate for President in our history during the most critical time in our history.

That he will have to come up with something a little more convincing other then his charming ways and handsome good looks as most of us can't buy it from Obama when it comes to REAL SOLID INTELLIGENT reasons.

So it makes more sense to see this for what it is and to give Powell his transparent real reason, the once over calling a spade a spade (no pun) and telling him maybe some of us were born at night but it wasnt last night. The reason Powell likes Obama is simple.

He is Black








[edit on 21-10-2008 by MAINTAL]




posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by MAINTAL This GUY is as UN AMERICAN as the Flag he refuses to wear and the refusal to gesture his pledge of his allegiance to, not putting his hand over his heart.


Well, like it or not, he appears to be the winner of the "anybody but a Republican" prize. Instead of all the vitriole, wouldn't it be a more worthwhile project to figure out why all this enmity against the right wing, and all the glory it's achieved in the last two terms? I mean you guys aren't even getting kissed any more.

Or is this another 'because they hate freedom' kinda thang?


Ya know Johhny, I can't tell you what the hell it is, I am serious about this however because I am an independant, Voted for Clinton once Bush twice regretably and was going to vote for Obama till I started reading the bills he voted for and the many he didn't vote at all etc. Then I read his book and started asking my own questions, questions that McCain is an open book about but Obama's is shrouded in secrecy and ridicule just for asking. This made me more suspicious and the more I see them say McCain is a liar about this or that the more i find out he AIN"T LYING!

But Obama sure seems to prefer the tactic and does it so well all the while blaming McCain. It's brilliant perhaps but it is still dishonest and Obama has lied so much it is absolutley silly to listen to his baloney anymore from his Dad being a goat herder to his reluctance to show his birth certificate having to get a court order for it and all we get is some photoshopped version of his sisters on his website.

Plus I know with all the superfluous hyperbole and fanfare being said about this guy, what it all boils down to is what he does and not what he says. I know all he has done in illinois can be summed up in one word.

"Present"






[edit on 21-10-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL
So it makes more sense to see this for what it is and to give Powell his transparent real reason, the once over calling a spade a spade (no pun) and telling him may have been born at night but it wasnt last night. The reason Powell likes Obama is simple.

He is Black


Two points: First, you can opine til the cows come home, and that doesn't make it fact. You wouldn't accept that standard from those you disagree with, so quit trying to ram it down other's throats.

Secondly...figuring that it's ok to bring the word 'spade' into a debate about race, no matter if you try to qualify its use or not, is a dead givaway as to your own prejudice. It's a fine example of what's been called 'the banality of evil'.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


And your next post sounded a whole lot less heated and a whole lot more reasonable, so If I overstepped my bounds in my previous post, I apologise.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11


A flag pin makes you patriotic? I assume you are wearing yours now?
Must we all wear flag pins lest we be percieved as unamerican by the GOP?


No, and AS usual, rather then seeing the central idea being made, you deliberatley MISS THE POINT!

No I am NOT wearing mine now and ya know what else I am not doing now nor will I ever do?

I won't ever make AS LAME an excuse for NOT wearing one like your man Obama did and YES it is a telling sign of a person who has no problem having the flag of a Communist Government in his Campaign Offices but is too embarrased to have one of OURS hanging in there. '

YES it is more of a clue as to why he stands with his hands at his sides during the pledge of allegiance knowing that is instructions given for anyone reading Saul Alinsky's book especially if that someone is Barack Hussein Obama and has called Alinsky one of his childhood hero's someone he wants to be like.

It is really pretty damn simple mayberry, it isn't THAT he won't wear one or THAT he should, it is WHY he says he won't that seems to be troubling most Americans and Yeah I DO have a problem with someone who is disengenuous about his loyalty to this country. If you think I was suggesting his wearing a flag pin should be the mandated dress code for a U.S President, you are wrong as usual, but it DOES make a rather silly straw man argument for those who have nothing more to challenge one of the great aggregation of the many clues etc we have for havingf second thoughts for voting for this socialist.

I love the slick talking semantics mayberry but you'll have to try them on someone less gullible and a LOT less experienced arguing with people that talk out both sides of their mouth.

EXAMPLE:

The POTUS should not ever be chosen based on race, religion or sex.


So you still haven't answered the question and all you have done is tried to be clever again using your wordsmithing tricks. Here let me correct this bastardization of the law pertaining to discrimination shall we.

The POTUS should not ever be NOT chosen based on race, religion or sex.


Makes a lot more sense when it isn't used deceptively doesn't it.

With your logic, it would be wrong to vote for someone predicated on our having any of those items in common and THAT is just plane asinine to suggest I can't vote for someone because they are female or religious when the REAL law pertains to reasons I would EXCLUDE them based on those reasons mayberry. Look guy, if all you are going to do is mis represent what I say, and continue to mis-represent the laws we have so that they will fit your argument, then I am fully aware of why you like Obama but as for anything legitimately challenging my position on the issue we have discussed so far,, you got nothing.

You're welcome to try again but this time, try using facts and above all, be honest without using all the deceptive wordsmithing.

It's just so hard to keep from feeling like i am picking on you anymore.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


And your next post sounded a whole lot less heated and a whole lot more reasonable, so If I overstepped my bounds in my previous post, I apologise.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]


Ahh you know how it is on these boards Johnny lol. i don't usually get worked up over the issues of threads but it is when I have to unravel word games and quote mined items or blatant lies I get a little impatient with the extra time it takes to write a post when if they just don't do that sort of thing and make this about right and wrong on the issues of facts and not one of ego's it would save a lot more time. The thing is this guy really does concern me a great deal. McCain isn't my choice but Ill take the choice i know rather then the one I don't know much about and what I do know I had to fight tooth and nail to get the facts and the person in the way of finding out is usually Barack Obama using his office to seal records or keep them from the public.

That stuff just really makes me suspicious



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by MAINTAL
So it makes more sense to see this for what it is and to give Powell his transparent real reason, the once over calling a spade a spade (no pun) and telling him may have been born at night but it wasnt last night. The reason Powell likes Obama is simple.

He is Black


Two points: First, you can opine til the cows come home, and that doesn't make it fact. You wouldn't accept that standard from those you disagree with, so quit trying to ram it down other's throats.

Secondly...figuring that it's ok to bring the word 'spade' into a debate about race, no matter if you try to qualify its use or not, is a dead givaway as to your own prejudice. It's a fine example of what's been called 'the banality of evil'.


No the point is, this is no different an accusation as was made to Obama talking about lipstick on a pig. I say calling a spade a spade because that is exactly what i am doing, CALLING IT LIKE I SEE IT. I am not about to get politically correct about this issue especially when you haven't even asked me why I don't have a problem using terms that way. You might want to ask me what Race I am but I don't think I should have to say to justify my right to say anything anyone else should be able to say without someone suggesting I am a racist. It is a saying like lipstick on a pig but if people want to suggest I meant something racial or Obama meant Sarah Palin and her being a woman or hockey mom etc. I don't have time to argue with mindreaders that way. So Ill just say this once, the meaning of that is like another I used in this thread to mean the same thing when I said, "if it looks like a duck"

You know how PC this place gets at times too because I have read your own frustration in posts like that.

I just think If this is about a subject matter that happens to have a Black American in the story, I am not about to worry the politically correct ramifications nor will I entertain any meaning anyone else suggests is what I must "really mean" when you don't know me at all.

I was hoping you might see the point and used the disclaimer of no pun but if you insist you know what I really mean, then i guess i know what Obama really meant using the lipstick on a pig statement. You see what I mean? How it gets more about what we think rather than what we want to think

[edit on 21-10-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL

Originally posted by maybereal11


A flag pin makes you patriotic? I assume you are wearing yours now?
Must we all wear flag pins lest we be percieved as unamerican by the GOP?


I love the slick talking semantics mayberry but you'll have to try them on someone less gullible and a LOT less experienced arguing with people that talk out both sides of their mouth.

EXAMPLE:

The POTUS should not ever be chosen based on race, religion or sex.


So you still haven't answered the question and all you have done is tried to be clever again using your wordsmithing tricks. Here let me correct this bastardization of the law pertaining to discrimination shall we.

The POTUS should not ever be NOT chosen based on race, religion or sex.


Makes a lot more sense when it isn't used deceptively doesn't it.

With your logic, it would be wrong to vote for someone predicated on our having any of those items in common and THAT is just plane asinine to suggest I can't vote for someone because they are female or religious when the REAL law pertains to reasons I would EXCLUDE them based on those reasons mayberry. Look guy, if all you are going to do is mis represent what I say, and continue to mis-represent the laws we have....


Okay....frankly you are freaking me out. I wasn't stating a law I was stating an opinion. It wasn't sneaky "deceptive" "wordsmithing".

I said a Potus should not ever be chosen based on race, religion or sex. It was my opinion. I don't think there is a law forbidding those that choose to vote for someone based on race etc. is there?

Confused.

So you say a Potus should not ever be NOT chosen based on race, religion or sex...Okay. Yes. Agreed.

How about this: It is my opinion (still not sure what the "law" talk was about) that Race, religion and sex should not play a part in choosing to vote for or against any candidate for POTUS.

Honest...no "wordsmithing". How is what I am saying complicated?

Also...you seem to rant alot with every response and its hard to keep up.

Communist flag in his headquarters? Please explain and provide CREDIBLE sources.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL

So you still haven't answered the question and all you have done is tried to be clever again using your wordsmithing tricks.

You're welcome to try again but this time, try using facts and above all, be honest without using all the deceptive wordsmithing.

It's just so hard to keep from feeling like i am picking on you anymore.



YOUR QUESTION:
please answer the question I have asked four times now,

What is it you have a problem with a black person voting for another black person because he is black? Can you answer that? even if it the reason is shallow what is it exactly makes that racist?

MY ANSWER FROM PREVIOUS POST:

The POTUS should not ever be chosen based on race, religion or sex.

Valueing race above qualifications. Thinking someone less suited/or better suited for any position based on the hue of their skin is stupid and yes, racist.

HOW DID THAT NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

Lets try this...have you ever heard of Hayakawa's abstraction ladder?

We use abstractions constantly. They are neccessary. We say "cars" when in reality all cars are different at some level each brand, model and even each car of a same brand or model. It makes no sense to identify each chair at a table...we say "chairs" ...we use abstraction. Philosophically even two identical chairs are different, scuffs etc or even more specific..the atoms are differently aligned. Abstractions, grouping things together are useful and good when speaking and thinking. This is useful when the differences are not important in a group of things and the similarities are. Chairs...Cars etc..But when we use abstractions to group a people based on their skin color we have chosen a simlilarity that is irrelevant and disregarded individual differences that are important in evaluating anything worth evaluating in a person. Racism is logically/philosophically faulted not to mention dehumanizing and immoral.

Voting for or against someone based on race or any other characteristic that is not relevant to their performance does not make sense and in critical positions such as POTUS it is reckless.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Like I said before, a refusal to use reason is a fault of yours and others who think like you.

Find out what reason means. Then study it. Maybe one day the meaning of this conversation will become clear to you.

Quite frankly, your premise and your conclusions are false.

Enough said.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Areal51

Find out what reason means. Then study it. Maybe one day the meaning of this conversation will become clear to you.


Oh I doubt that will ever happen and if all you can do is offer a contradiction without proving my premise is false, why should anyone believe you? SHOW ME! don't just make ad hom's and comments that amount to nothing other than a less efficient way to say you don't agree with me and you can't tell us why, as it only hurts your position appearing that you don't know why as the reason you can't tell us why.

Make sense ?

It should because it's lazy and it doesn't make your case but it does prove my point about Obamaniacs using ridicule showing a willingness to be argumentative but that doesn't mean they know how to argue much less prove you have any skill in debating me on it. If you think you do, than I would be more than happy to see you back up your bravado in a debate tete a tete, mono e mono, and lets see what cha got.

When you are willing to prove me wrong with facts rather than just make some ecstatic utterance in some monosyllabic diatribe only YOU would be impressed with, let me know.

Otherwise, keep doing it your way and Ill keep laughing because you are quite hilarious when you try to act like you know what you are talking about. The challenge is in your court just let me know and Ill set it up.





[edit on 22-10-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

I said a Potus should not ever be chosen based on race, religion or sex. It was my opinion. I don't think there is a law forbidding those that choose to vote for someone based on race etc. is there?


No there isn't and that is why it isn't illegal to vote for Obama because he is black. It seems however that too is viewed as racist but only when white people suggesting blacks do it and no other way.



Confused. So you say a Potus should not ever be NOT chosen based on race, religion or sex...Okay. Yes. Agreed.


Yes then we agree on something, and that, by the way is the law in addition to being your opinion now that we got that cleared up.




Communist flag in his headquarters? Please explain and provide CREDIBLE sources.


Well like most people asking for proof including what they deem are credible sources, it has been my experience it is next to impossible to prove a thing negative about Obama even his own words in his own book prove what I am saying regarding his socialism, Ill ask you if i were to show you proof, would it have any effect on your choice?

This is what I am finding is so curious about Obamanauts is the ether they seem to be in with this guy. I mean the dots all connect the friends, his back round his extreme left voting record etc,. all point in the same direction and where their is smoke the r is fire.



Now of course their was an excuse to this given by the Obama camp but indulge me for a time here take a another serious look at what Obama he likes to read, his favorite books, like Communist author Saul Alinsky whose many quotes Obama has taken from his book describing how to usurp America from the inside without spilling a drop of blood being an agent for change in a conspiracy to get Americans to become unknowing agents for change to topple the American Government from one based on the Constitution to a Socialist gradually increasing with every generation a more Communist Society. This is the agenda for a group called the Socialist Democrats of Illinois where Obama is a registered member. He has been very vocal in his opposition to our handling of Cuba so much so that he has Fidel Castro's endorsement.

One of the interests Obama has with his wife Michelle when he met her was also that she was very interested in socialism. The Communist Manifesto instructs its followers that patriotism, especially of the American kind, is counter intuitive to bringing about what they refer to to as the "change" they believe in.

The movement gained a lot of popularity in 1998-99 and many running for office as democrats were living double lives as agents for the change they believed in.

Now one thing you usually find when you meet people with common interests is more of them. More people sharing an interest that is one many Americans died trying to keep from ever happening. Like most areas of interest, each has its own vernacular, its own terminology they all understand and one they all share. Many are used in Obama speeches. Words like "Economic Justice" "Academic Justice" "redistribution of wealth" all taken straight from Saul Alinsky's book.

Obama has danced around questions regarding his questionable ideology only to leave many feeling a sense of resentment being told our valid questions are merely racist or regurgitated McCain negative attack ads, etc. In Obama's book the Audacity of truth we find many of the inconsistencies and other very curious clues to what kind of man Obama is, questions about his Birth place still remain unclear and his statements made about many of the issues regarding his wife's thesis to the recent investigation where they had discovered he had many documents destroyed or held in bogus litigation similarly to the way Obama got his seat in the senate in an un-opposed election.

His claim of Christianity is a bold faced lie and THAT I know for certain because anyone who can be pro death or what they call abortion even where up to 11 hours after a baby born alive is to be given no rights what so ever, as if it is a thing, a non person is contrary to the very rights blacks who once were treated as non persons have fought so hard to overcome.

On the very rare occasion Rev Wright actually USES REAL scripture from the bible rather than rant about how rich white people control all the blacks is typical for Black Liberation Theology and it also makes a good cover, for his real religion which was Islamic Muslim.

Now he has spent a lot of money and time re writing his history but he can't re-write his book and in his own words he is Muslim living a double life as a Christian in a non Christian church which is pro abortion, anti American and anti white with a religious ideology for socialism. This was perfect for Obama in the beginning but later would be a problem and like most of the problems he has with this recurring connections to socialists and Muslims.

Interesting you would bring up such a tortuously construed ad hoc reason for what I have called your wordsmith attempts.

In as much as I might agree with the ladder existing having seen this sort of post modernist technique in debating topics related to absolute truth and many other topics where proponents like to use level 4 abstractions to muddy the waters, any formal debate such as a court of law for instance will get you a reprimand on the first attempt and a contempt charge if you continue to use that line of argument.

If you are already well versed in semantics as you indicate then you already know what I am saying is true (*based on the work of Hayakawa's ladder of abstractions) In the simplest terms then, the more Level 1 abstraction you use in your writing, the more you will be understood by your audience.


Originally posted by maybereal11


YOUR QUESTION:
please answer the question I have asked four times now,

What is it you have a problem with a black person voting for another black person because he is black? Can you answer that? even if it the reason is shallow what is it exactly makes that racist?

MY ANSWER FROM PREVIOUS POST:


HOW DID THAT NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

Lets try this...have you ever heard of Hayakawa's abstraction ladder?

Voting for or against someone based on race or any other characteristic that is not relevant to their performance does not make sense and in critical positions such as POTUS it is reckless.


ok I think I see where we are not connecting, and It is that your opinion happens to be the law and when it comes to the law, it doesn't entertain anything above a level 1 abstraction layer. I think it is obvious the reasons why as our situation has already proven when we both are on the same page, things get much easier to comprehend.

Now here is where the confusion comes from.

When you gave your first initial reason for POTUS it was similar to the way the law is written regarding discrimination laws which we both agree.

having said that and regardless of whether you think it is immoral or wrong to vote for someone merely because they are black is NOT illegal and some Blacks have justified this by saying it is about time we had a Black person in office and we might not be getting another chance this close to being the one we've all been waiting for again.

I have no problem with that because it is their right to do that so without Obama having anything more to put on his resume than his mysteriously financed college tuition's to several of the best universities and his $12,000 a year job, he really has nothing more for Powell to give as his reason for voting for him and as we have all seen thanks to you and your reference hayakawa ladder, we see Powell using more level 4 abstractions to explain his reason for voting for Obama.

Saying he is "inspirational" and a "transformational figure" doesn't answer the question if you want to get to the brass tax he has just given us fluff and I know he is more intelligent than that but one thing I know will over ride his intelligence is his racism and if you don't think Blacks are Racist, just listen to them in a conversation where they think they are not among white people and you'll hear racism like you wouldn't believe. It would shock you if you are as naive as you are displaying.

Obama being Black is nothing compared to Obama being a socialist and THAT is what I keep seeing signs of and I am not ALONE. when ASKED IF HE BELIEVES IN A SOCIALIST AMERICA Obama dodges the question again claiming it is the politics of distraction.

No it is not, but it IS a valid question and one we Voters deserve an HONEST ANSWER too. If he won't answer it, Ill use what clues I have already seen myself and he has already made patent in his Book. He was raised by a powerful Communist leader but we all heard him say he was a Goat herder. NOT TRUE and by the look of things, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree

www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...




[edit on 22-10-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 02:56 AM
link   

A lesson on human nature


I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl the other day. I asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up and she replied, 'I want to be President!' Both of her parents are liberal Democrats and were standing there. So then I asked her, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?'

She replied, 'I'd give houses to all the homeless people.'

'Wow - what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'You don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where this homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house.'

Since she is only 6, she looked rather puzzled.

As she thought it over, her Mom glared at me, looked me straight in the eye and asked in an angry tone, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay HIM the $50?'

It was then I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party!'

She grabbed her daughters arm and walked off in a huff and hasn't spoke to me since but her temper is legend around here.

maybe you've heard of her too

her name is Michelle Obama






[edit on 22-10-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL

A lesson on human nature
...maybe you've heard of her too

her name is Michelle Obama



So, does Neal Boortz actually know you're lifting his stuff to embellish and post without attributing his original work in the first place?

Plagerism is theft, even in Blue States.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by MAINTAL

A lesson on human nature
...maybe you've heard of her too

her name is Michelle Obama



So, does Neal Boortz actually know you're lifting his stuff to embellish and post without attributing his original work in the first place?

Plagerism is theft, even in Blue States.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]


Hey man I didn't know who the hell wrote it , or i would have linked it, i got it in a chain email and thought it was hilarious.

Thanks for the heads up johnny I was wondering who it was.


[edit on 22-10-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL
Originally posted by maybereal11
Communist flag in his headquarters? Please explain and provide CREDIBLE sources.







Now of course their was an excuse to this given by the Obama camp but indulge me for a time here ...............


I think I am done indulging you. There was not an "excuse" there was a debunking.

YOU claimed Obama had a communist flag hanging in HIS HEADQUARTERS.

Then when I ask for credible sources you post a picture from a FOX News Affiliate that was posted on World Net Daily....WOW.

Even the FOX Affiliate that the image was taken from acknowledged that the image was from an INDEPENDANT VOLOUNTEER OFFICE and was not funded by or endorsed by the Obama campaign.

The flag is of Che Guevera, an Argentine born Marxist revolutionary and the woman who was running the volounteer drive was a fan.

BUT YOU SAID "OBAMA HEADQUARTERS" I understand why, the far right attack squad on the issue distorted the truth and associated story with the image and sent it around in email and posted it on right wing web sites as "Obama Headquarters"...but I am sure it was just an innocent mistake and they meant to say...an independant volounteer office opened by a cuban-american woman. LOL

You LIE...OR at least you eat without question what is spoon fed to you.

Also that whole his dad was a goat herder thing? Was that you that was calling him a liar? See second link. His father was indeed a Goat Herder among other professions....

Lastly....WordNetDaily...where much of this stuff that you are propagating originates...that Source I asked for that you posted...That site makes Michael Moore look credible and objective.

WND is famous for blatant right wing attacks and flat out lieing.

Your agenda is clear...you have propagted lies and ignored facts...Actually you kind of remind me of someone who was banned.

Research...stop lieing. ATS is better than that.

Here is one of many sites debunking the Che thing.
www.snopes.com...

www.snopes.com...



[edit on 22-10-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 22-10-2008 by maybereal11]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL
They claim he lied about Obama wanting to teach Kindergartners sex education but when we actually LOOK at the update to the bill (SB99), that is in FACT exactly what Obama was supporting in the Ill senate. When the Democrats say Obama was talking about teaching kids about child sex predators, and we actually READ the Bill, their is NO such language in the update ANYWHERE to be found, NONE!


A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.

Newsweek Factcheck
www.newsweek.com...
SB99: Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. ... Course material and instruction shall teach pupils ... how to say no to unwanted sexual advances ... and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment.

Washington Post Factcheck
voices.washingtonpost.com...

Factcheck.org
www.factcheck.org...



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL
The same reason he didn't support the first bailout bill Obama wanted passed because McCain didn't want to pass it with 20% of the bill going to ACORN.


Please provide a source that the original bailout bill contained any provision directing 20% of the funds to the ACORN orginization.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL
But Obama sure seems to prefer the tactic and does it so well all the while blaming McCain. It's brilliant perhaps but it is still dishonest and Obama has lied so much it is absolutley silly to listen to his baloney anymore from his Dad being a goat herder to his reluctance to show his birth certificate having to get a court order for it and all we get is some photoshopped version of his sisters on his website.
[edit on 21-10-2008 by MAINTAL]


Obama's father WAS a goat herder among other professions.

That and the rest of your list of lies was debunked here among many other sites...
www.snopes.com...

A court did NOT order Obama to provide his birth certificate. An attorney in Philly demanded it and the court has not responded to the motion yet.

This has been discussed and debunked on many other threads here on ATS. You can also google if you had any interest in accuracy or truth...which I doubt. I am getting tired of doing it for you.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by MAINTAL

A lesson on human nature
...maybe you've heard of her too

her name is Michelle Obama



So, does Neal Boortz actually know you're lifting his stuff to embellish and post without attributing his original work in the first place?

Plagerism is theft, even in Blue States.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]


Hey man I didn't know who the hell wrote it , or i would have linked it, i got it in a chain email and thought it was hilarious.

Thanks for the heads up johnny I was wondering who it was.


[edit on 22-10-2008 by MAINTAL]


This explains your sources and research. Thanks.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by maybereal11]





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join