So Jimmy Buffet does a benefit concert for Obama.
Posted By: last time I checked Jimmy Buffet was white. on 2008-10-30
In Reply to: I don't think you can blame in on either candidate (sm) - MeMT
How is this a division of the races? There are all different races in this country ya' know.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Yes. I also know that Buffet is a rare form of CEO.
Man of principle, to be sure. Drives you crazy, doesn't it?
Buffet and Soros manipulated Japan, European and
Care to share your theory on HOW they manipulated the markets? Are they also behind the mortgage meltdown, plummeting home values, bank failures, AIG, credit crisis, consumer confidence index, drops in retail sales, plunge in annual sales reports for GM and Chrysler, layoffs negative jobs growth, rise in unemployment, record Exxon and Chevron profits and the like? All manipulated?
With regard to your sour grapes. Obama will win this election because the republicans failed to overcome the Bush legacy of worst administration in the history of the country. They are in a leadershp crisis that produced a weak candidate who could not put together an effective issues-based campaign and, instead, indulged itself in cultural warfare and the politics of division...which in an of itself is a clear sign of 4 more years of the same stuff we are all trying to run far and wide to get away from. Their party is in shambles because of its right wing who is losing its grip of influence and power over the more moderate and centrist among them. Time for some new blood and a platform transplant.
Obama is clearly the best choice for the future of our country. We could use a little "touchy feely" and will benefit immensely by a giant step forward in terms of taking us into a post racial, post partisan reaffirmation of our core values and common sense of purpose, being unity, justice, equality and opportunity for all Americans. It comes as no surprise that some will not quickly recover from the negativity they have been mired in over this past year and it will be up to them whether they stay stuck in the mud or get with the program.
For those who opt for "more of the same," you will be finding out what it feels like to go through exactly what the democrats are finally emerging from after these past 8 years...the depression that comes from a sense of anomie and living in a parallel universe. That choice is yours.
I think that it was Jimmy Swaggert that
the poster was referring to. He indeed did seek out prostitutes for awhile there; however, he admitted it and apologized to his congregation which I thought was commendable, even though his personal delivery of **the good news** is a bit too theatrical for me. You can't be forgiven if you show no remorse.
They are still getting benefit from it. sm
On cue, conveniently before the primaries, apparently Osama has taken time off from his job as a bartender in Santa Monica to send the American people another message. You all better vote for those candidates who are tough on those terrorists now.
Oh, we all know who will benefit.....won't be you
Obama has already said "spread the wealth" out of his own mouth. That is socialism 101. Perhaps there is now a book out called "Socialism for Dummies". If not, it will be out soon. Get yourself a copy.
Yes, but they are and it's the left that's doing it. Jimmy Carter even said so. nm
.
Does anyone know what happened to Jimmy Carter's eye?
I'm just wondering, I'm watching the democratic convention and it looks really bad! Is it an infection or something??
THanks for the info. I think others here could benefit from it also.
Thank you for sharing. I really didn't know that.
Technically, it does benefit someone.... sm
The oil execs, the oil field workers, the gas and oil distributors, the gas station owners, and several ancillary industries do benefit from the higher gas prices. I have a friend who is a consultant in the oil industry at the production level. He was clearing 5 figures a month prior to the reduction in gas prices but has been out of work for the past 6 weeks or so. Granted, he does have a nice little nest egg on which to coast for a while, but he is still a consumer and still is affected by the reduction in oil prices.
I'm not trying to justify the rise in gas prices as being right because it does bring work to a certain sector of the work force, but rather I am just saying that in the oil industry, as with any area of the work force, what may benefit them may not benefit all people. So it will also be with Obama's stimulus package. What puts money in your pocket, for example, may not help me at all or may even adversely affect me.
Falling for O's promises, just like Jimmy Carter
nm
Ever heard what Jimmy Carter has to say on this issue -
Obama has not said much of anything in light of this recent development. Looks like he may be keeping an open mind and may be exercising alternative options once he takes office.
Jimmy Carter tries to rewrite history...
December 1, 2006 by Lee Green
Jimmy Carter Distorts Facts, Demonizes Israel in New Book
Former President Jimmy Carter has written an egregiously biased book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and is currently doing numerous interviews to sell the book and its ideas. Carter is attempting to rewrite history, and in his alternate universe, Arabs parties are blameless and Israel is at fault for almost all the conflicts in the world. One gets the feeling after reading just a few pages that if he could have blamed Hurricane Katrina on Israel, he would have. His main messages are that Israel is badly mistreating the Palestinians and that the cause of the conflict is Israel's refusal to return to what he calls its "legal borders" (sic), the pre-67 armistice lines.
Because the Palestinian Arabs have been offered a viable state of their own numerous times, including with the same borders that Carter desires, but turned it down since it meant recognizing Israel's legitimacy and permanence and ending the conflict, Carter either ignores or mischaracterizes the offers. He never lets the facts get in the way of his "must blame Israel" theories. In Carter's twisted universe, it is the Arabs who have always been eager for peace, with Israel opposing it at every turn.
Almost every page of Carter's book contains errors, distortions or glaring omissions. The following list is just a small portion of the many problems in the book:
• Carter claims Israel has been the primary obstacle to peace, that Arab leaders have long sought peace while Israel preferred holding on to "Palestinian land" over peace, and that if only Israel would "[withdraw] to the 1967 border as specified in the U.N. Resolution 242...", there would be peace.
Aside from his obviously questionable opinions, Carter is factually wrong when he asserts that U.N. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice line that was in place until 1967. He has repeated this serious falsehood in many interviews, such as on the November 28 PBS NewsHour:
"The demand is for them to give back all the land. The United Nations resolutions that apply, the agreements that have been made at Camp David under me and later at Oslo for which the Israeli leaders received the Nobel Peace Prizes, was [sic] based on Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories."
He mischaracterizes UN resolutions and apparently has forgotten what he himself signed as a witness to the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which states in Section A1c: "The negotiations [concerning the West Bank and Gaza] shall be based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements."
To claim now that the very agreement he witnessed and signed specifies withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines is outrageous. [While the 1979 Camp David document again mentions UN Resolution 242, it makes no further mention of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. It instead deals with Israeli-Egyptian relations, and includes a map of the Israel-Egypt International Boundary (Annex II). Tellingly, no maps demarcating any boundary between Israel and the Palestinians are appended to the Camp David documents, Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords, or the "road map".]
UN Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the land to the "1967 border", since there is no such border. The "green line" is merely the 1949 armistice line and the drafters of 242 explicitly stated that this line was not a "secure border" -- which 242 calls for.
The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."
The American UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that, "The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and the 'June 5, 1967 lines' ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."
The reasoning of the United States and its allies at the time was clear: Any resolution which, in the face of the aggressive war launched in 1967 against Israel, required complete Israeli withdrawal, would have been seen as a reward for aggression and an invitation to future aggression. This is assuredly not what the UN voted for, or had in mind, when it passed Resolution 242.
For more details on the meaning of 242, click here.
- Many media outlets have corrected erroneous characterizations of 242 (prompted by CAMERA), including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The corrections clarify that 242 does not require Israel to give all the land acquired in the 67 War to the Palestinians. For example:
Correction (New York Times, 9/8/00): An article on Wednesday about the Middle East peace talks referred incorrectly to United Nations resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Middle East War, calls for Israel's armed forces to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," no resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territory, including East Jerusalem, occupied in the war.
Correction (Wall Street Journal, 5/11/04): United Nations Security Council resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied" in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, but doesn't specify that the withdrawal should be from all such territories. An International page article Friday incorrectly stated that Security Council resolutions call for Israel to withdraw from all land captured in the 1967 war.
• Similarly, Carter repeatedly errs when he asserts that the West Bank is "Palestinian land," rather than disputed land whose (likely) division and designation will be decided through negotiations (as per Resolution 242).
For example, Carter said on the Nov 28 Newshour:
"And I chose this title very carefully. It's Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians' territory, not Israel."
• In his book, Carter almost always presents Israeli leaders in a negative light, and they are frequently described as trying to impede the peace process. In contrast, Carter describes despotic Arab leaders in glowing terms, quotes them at length, without any comments about the accuracy of their statements. He writes, for instance,
"When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1990, he stated 'The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel.' "
Carter fails to note that Arafat and the PLO have frequently called for the destruction of Israel and that the destruction of Israel is a key part of the PLO Charter (most explicitly in Articles 15 and 22):
"Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence..." (from Article 22).
Arafat regularly called for violence against Israel. In a speech to Palestinian Arab leaders from Hebron, broadcast on official PA Television on January 26, 2002, Arafat urged:
"Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad!"
Carter follows up the absurd quotation from Arafat by describing the PLO in admiring language, without mentioning the terror so central to their agenda.
• Carter spends much of the book conveying Arab grievances against Israel, while rarely providing any context from the Israeli perspective. When he does, it is perfunctory and brief. While terror against Israel is mentioned, it is rare and sharply minimized.
• The vicious incitement against Israel and Jews by the Arabs is treated as a trivial complaint rather than as the fuel that keeps the flame of bigotry and violence alive. The only time Carter mentions incitement is to complain that the Israelis insisted on cessation of incitement against Israel, "but the Roadmap cannot state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians."
Since there is no state-sponsored anti-Arab incitement in Israel, and incitement against Arabs is actually a crime in Israel, it would have been misleading to include a proscription against it in the Roadmap. That would have made it seem that incitement in Israel was comparable to the massive, systemic incitement in Palestinian society.
As for his reference to "Israel must cease violence...against the Palestinians," he appears to morally equate Israeli counter-terror measures with Palestinian terror against Israeli civilians.
• In describing what led to the conflicts this year between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and Hezbollah, Carter continues his pattern of minimizing Arab violence, thereby placing Israel's military responses into question due to the lack of context. Carter mentions the abduction of the Israeli soldiers, but fails to inform his readers about the rockets from Gaza that were being fired daily at Israeli civilians in southwest Israel and omits that Hezbollah did much more than abduct 2 soldiers; before the abduction, they fired missiles at Israeli communities in northern Israel.
• Carter obfuscates important aspects of history. Here's how he describes the British giving almost all of Mandate Palestine—78 percent—to Emir Abdullah after World War I to create Transjordan (later renamed Jordan): "Another throne was needed, so an emirate called Transjordan was created out of some remote desert regions of the Palestine Mandate ..." [emphasis added]
• He writes of various Arab leaders accepting the two-state solution, and sometimes mentions that they also require the so-called right of return (of the millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel, as opposed to the future state of Palestine). But Carter doesn't explain that due to the high Arab birthrate, the so-called right of return would quickly turn Israel into another Arab state, transforming the two-state (Arab and Jewish) solution into a two-Arab states solution. While he writes of the many items he feels are unreasonable deal-breakers demanded by Israel, he never addresses the Arab demands that are deal-breakers for Israel.
• In his conclusion, Carter accuses the American government of being "submissive," claiming that due to "powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Israel dominate in our media ..."
Carter's claim that "voices from Israel dominate in our media" is especially ironic at a time when Carter himself is all over the media spreading his anti-Israel message. And since Carter is prone to demonizing Israel, it likely never occurred to him that perhaps our politicians don't frequently criticize Israeli government decisions because Israel shares our values of democracy, pluralism and the sanctity of life, and its decisions are, on the whole, fair and just.
• Apparently admiringly, Carter writes: "At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan." That Carter apparently feels this is a more realistic, helpful worldview is revealing.
In general, Carter holds Israel to an unreasonably high standard of almost pacifist behavior, while holding the Arabs to no standard at all. In his world, the terror against Israel has been minimal, hardly worth mentioning and certainly not important enough for Israelis to respond to or for the world community to condemn. The Arabs should suffer no consequences for continuing to attack and terrorize Israel, for continuing to indoctrinate their population to see Jews as sub-humans who deserve to be murdered. Carter advocates having the Arabs' maximalist demands rewarded. It is Israel who must make all the concessions and sacrifices. The Arabs' bigotry and supremacist attitudes regarding non-Muslims and the west - attitudes central to the conflict -- are entirely ignored by Carter.
Since Carter is a former president, and because he is well known for his work on Habitat for Humanity, interviewers are for the most part being entirely deferential to him, while rarely pointing out that his book and statements are filled with inaccuracies and distortions. But Carter should not be allowed to rewrite history and erase decades of Arab bigotry, rejectionism and terror, while inventing Israeli intransigence and opposition to peace.
COuld be, but I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt,,,
and think he was entirely sincere because he loves his family and would not want anyone going after them because he is seeking high office. Good for him!
O will cut taxes for 95% to benefit WC families.
Then ask yourself which group you fall into. If you are in the top 5% economic class or area huge corporation, then by all means you should not vote for O. Take off your party hat and give this some real consideration.
Saturday night we had a benefit
bean supper in our community...guess who cooked the beans? The menu was pinto beans with ham hocks, fried 'taters, cornbread and fruit cobblers. Us downhome folks, about a hundred of us, ate ourselves silly. Only thing missing was the turnip greens. I don't care much for possum, too fat, but if it comes to eating it or going hungry I 'spect I'll develop a better taste for it.
Yeah and #2 is Jimmy Carter and #3 Michael Moore. So what? SM
Wow, you are easily amused.
Lee Green did not monitor the elections, Jimmy Carter did.
Lee Green is the director of CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy on Middle East Reporting) which is a Pro-Israeli American Media Monitor. I prefer to read a book and make up my own mind and certainly am not surprised that Zionist critics would hate Carter and the truths he exposed in his book. They can protest to their heart's content, but they can't turn lies into truth.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...
you meant to say Osama Bin Laden and mistakenly said Sadaam Hussein, right?
People, please, please be informed and know the issues before you go to the polls. It's important.
Not the worst...Jimmy Carter holds that dubious honor....
Mr. Democat Jimmy Carter. Check out the economy while he was in office...and what Obama is doing will make that look like a walk in the park. Oh, but the rest of the world will love us....LOL. Ya kill me. LOL.
Screaming was to give you the benefit of the doubt because you acted like you were deaf.
Instead it's obvious you're just dumb.
Go to your own board. You're not wanted here.
So, rich tax cuts expire, middle class gets benefit,
will undermine, erode and ultimately vaporize capitalist money/greed ambition and incentive to produce, but keep minimum wage workers at sub-living-wage levels and expect them to have exhibit impeccible work ethic and slave away 24/7 with no complaints? I think I got it now.
Yes - a bean-counter will decide that the cost-benefit ratio over the expected remaining life span..
...isn't worth it, and you'll be denied that hip replacement or whatever. So much less expensive to prop you up in a wheelchair and shove you in a corner. They'll poke you tomorrow morning to see if you're dead yet.
And, folks, I'm not kidding.
This post really makes me WANT to vote for Obama. I am undecided, but this pushes me closer to Obama
...Thanks for the info!
Obama was cool, while grouchy man steamed. Obama!!!
I'm so happy. The dippy people on here who are haters and racists and mccain lovers must be so po'd today. HAHAHAHAHAHA
If Obama gets elected, then it was meant to be! Go, Obama!
nm
Go Obama/Biden! I don't like it and will VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN!
Obama has shown great judgment in the people who surround him. He picked a great VP choice, and his wife is impeccable as a helpmate and is a fantastic role model for the American children.
Obama
I believe Obama has an awesome political future. He sure is a bright light, and he would be someone I would seriously consider voting for.
Someone I like even better is Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee. Every time I hear this man speak, I like him more and more and more.
I think there are lots of good candidates out there who don't fit the profiles you outlined, which I also believe to be true, and I think we're well overdue in considering those candidates because, in my opinion, what we've been offered in the last several elections -- on BOTH sides -- has been pretty pitiful. The "box" isn't working, and it's time to look outside of it.
Obama is the man!!!
I think he will make an excellent president some day. Maybe Hillary/Obama would be a good ticket choice.
obama
FYI - he never attended a midrasha. This was later corrected.
Obama 08...nm
Obama et. al.
If we get Obama or any of the other candidates we will get more of the same. War and taxes. Empire building. If you like that kind of stuff, vote for any of the candidates EXCEPT.......... RON PAUL. The only candidate for peace, limited government and minding our own business. 
Obama
As I posted on the other board, it is crazy that in one breath people are freaking out saying he is a Muslim, and in the next one, they are freaking out because of his stand on abortion. Being pro-choice really does not go with being a Muslim.
I like Obama, and I like his stance on choice. I really could care less if he is a Muslim. But, he belongs to a Christian church and has for over 20 years, before he had a political career.
People never cease to amaze me!
Obama
My husband just returned from Iraq, we support the war-- but if I had to vote democrat, definitely Obama, please!! But I vote republican, hee hee.
Go Obama!
What a great victory for Obama!
Did anyone see the Kennedy’s endorsement for Obama and his speech this morning? I have never been more excited and inspired in politics. In my life I’ve voted both sides (usually not voting for a candidate but rather voting for the other side as a vote against a candidate). I usually tune out in politics because of outright lies. Barack is the first candidate that I finally understand what he stands for, what his plans are, and he is someone who can connect with everyone in every walk of life. He is a trustworthy, inspiring, and humble person and his voting record and other aspects of his government life give me the confidence that he would be a great president. Listening to his speeches gives me hope for a better country/future for everyone.
I respect everyone’s choice for who they think would be a better president, but I’m sick to death of Clinton and what she stands for. All you have to do is read up on the history of her and what she did when she resided in Oakland California (who her mentors/ colleagues were and what her motives/plans are). She claims to have all this “experience” but doesn’t have it. She takes what her husband accomplished and if it was something good she claims credit to it and if it was bad she had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile her husband is so consumed/greedy (not sure which word best suits him – maybe consumed with greed) to get back into the white house that he is purposely destroying the opponents (even Ted Kennedy had to call and admonish him), but that is the Clinton legacy, destroying other people’s lives. Then when someone does call him on something he will point his finger at them in a threatening way and plays the victim role. It makes me ill just thinking of having someone as corrupt as both of them back in the white house.
If Bill was such a great president they should bring up all the great things that happened under his presidency, but we are not hearing any of it, why? Because there is none. In my opinion he was one of the worst presidents in history. Not one thing he did was for the good of the country. And if anyone believes that she was such a “good wife” while he was out messing around with other women think again. She had her mind set on being president a long time ago. She just uses him to get what she wants. Everything she does has always been calculated.
As for his presidency, I think people are forgetting….he lied under oath and he was impeached for it. Which brings me to another question…why does anyone believe anything he has to say now? Remember the phrase “that all depends on what the meaning of is, is”. Then there was Waco Texas – people were burned alive. But they called them members of a cult, so I guess that made it okay. Then let’s see…Somalia, Bosnia, Monica (and no it wasn’t just about having an affair with her or all the other women), receiving illegal contributions, Vince Foster, and the list goes on and on and on.
An article I just read said it better than I can….
“The problem for Hillary Clinton is that, as usual, she wants it both ways. She wants to be judged on her own merits and not be treated as Bill's Mini-Me. But she also wants to reap the benefits of Bill's popularity, and offers voters the reassuring suggestion that if there's a crisis while she's in the White House, there will be someone around who really does have executive branch experience - namely, Bill - to lend a hand. But the Clintons are playing a dangerous game. The more they remind us of what we liked about Act I of the Bill and Hillary Show, the more they also remind us of what we hated.
If you are interested in reading the whole article this is the link…
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-brooks0128.artjan28,0,7018385.story
Obama
He would be better than the one that has been there for 8 years. No matter who is elected, it will take a long time to fix what Bush as screwed up!
<3 Obama too!!
:)
Obama
If she keeps lying from today until November she might actually catch up with Obama!
Go Obama
Haven't seen any posts here for awhile. Very excited about the outcome of tonight's election. I am so glad to see that people are not buying the "gimmicks" Hillary proposed. Gas tax holiday?...give me a break! Someone needed to ask her, "So what happens when the holiday is over", you charge back up the gas price!
The big joke is that Bill Clinton raised the gas tax in his first year in office. It was included in a package of tax increases that amounted to the biggest tax increase in history. It was raised by 4.3 cents. Not only did he raise the gas tax, but he wanted to raise it even higher.
So you should all get this straight...Hillary is "claiming" she would give drivers 3 whole months (wow - imagine that) 18 cent a gallon cut after her husband forced drivers to pay an extra 5 cents for 15 years.
Unfortunately there were some people who bought into her pandering (which by the way is another word for lying), but thank goodness enough people with an education and most important most of the with common sense could see right through her lies.
Way to go North Carolina - I'm so pleased. And Indiana too. It was a close race thank goodness.
Now she needs to step down. Why? Because its the right thing to do. Do the numbers. There is no way she can win and anyone who believes so needs to wake up. What we need is for her to support Barack Obama (that is if she's telling the truth about the most important thing is nominating a democrat for president). Somehow though I do not believe she has the best interest of the party or the american people in mind. Her goal is to serve herself. She needs to graciously bow out and put all her efforts into getting a democrat in the office.
P.S. - Note to the "ditto heads". Maybe we should rename Limbaugh followers "dumbo heads". Not only did your little plan fail Mr. Limbo, but it failed badly. In a poll taken (and yes I know polls can be misleading), but not only did the republicans change parties to vote for a democrat but the majority of them voted for Obama. Then on top of that over 75% of republicans that voted as democrats said that Obama could be McCain (or as I am hearing him being referred to as McBush), but only around 25% said they believed Hillary could win. So not only does Hillary need to do the math, so does Mr. Limbo.
Obama
Is Barack Hussein Obama the Antichrist?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=94d_1202965504
I am for Obama because...
My point in fact is agreeing with the republicans in that Obama does not have a lot of experience - I think not having a lot of experience is a good thing because it means he is not "hand-in-hand" with all the people that have been in charge for so long - he can form his own opinions, make his own decisions, and not go with somebody just because they did this or that for somebody or they contributed this or that to somebody...
No, Obama gets it better than many do
Check out this award-winning article written by Fareed Zakaria, a foreign policy expert, right after 9/11 called "Why They Hate Us" - http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.html
Most people at that time (myself included) said that question was irrelavant, but understanding why they some have those attitudes helps us understand better what the U.S. can do to help change it. The fringe extremists will never go away, but their support by the general Muslim community as a whole will diminish (and already is). Free markets and capitalism would go a long way toward this goal and I think Obama gets that.
obama wants to be GOD
He wants to change the structure of the U.S. and he wants to bargain with and change the structure of Europe.. He is a destroyer.
obama
Muslims are dedicated to destroying the US from within. Obama is Muslim.
Obama..........
I think the pictures speak for themselves....although there will be plenty of Obama lovers who will sing his praises and find excuse after excuse why the flat is no longer on the plane. He could have just as easily left the flag and put his little slogan on there with it, but chose to remove the flag altogether. Speaks volumes!!!!
Obama is Muslim, will always be Muslim, and it is very disturbing to me that anyone would want a Muslim president. No Muslims have ever spoken out about 9/11 which also speaks volumes!! He has learned his Muslim faith from a young child, and the little boys are taught to hate the US and anyone who isn't them...he is no different. There are too may who sing his praises but refuse to state the obvious. Just because they hate republicans sure doesn't mean you put the fox in charge of the hen house. At no time during his speeches have I ever heard him speak of his love for the United States. He just repeats over and over where he came from, who raised him, and what their faiths were, and folks better open their ears and listen up.
No candidate for President of this country would so boldy make a point of getting rid of the very thing that is such a strong symbol of this country. Try doing that in another country and you will be hauled off to jail....the end!!
And, I don't want to hear about this is a free country and he can do what he wants. The whole point of this "free" country is to support the US and our beliefs, not Muslim beliefs which are definitely that of hate. A lot of feathers will be ruffled with this comment, but I really don't care to sugar coat the facts just because some hate republicans or other parties to the point they will accept anything in the white house....a wolf in sheep's clothing, and there will be MANY because of their hatred for the other candidate, who will be sucked into his beliefs as well.
Obama
You know, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between any of them. They all have ghosts in their closets. They just hope we do not find out about them. Bush Sr. had a girlfriend while he was in service. Eisenhower did, LBJ was a womanizer. Jimmy Carter is a good human, still working for Habitat and the poor people. Bush Jr. used cocaine while he was at Camp David about 10 years or so ago. Not that long ago. Let's not forget John Edwards. Like I said there are no clean cut guys or ladies. We do not know that much about OBama yet. I have my doubts about him. He came out of nowhere, too strong and the younger population fell for whatever he has said.
EVERYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT HER CAN BE SAID ABOUT OBAMA!
I can see your problem with McCain but every bash you make about her is the same about Obama. No experience for either of them, at least she's got EXECUTIVE experience. Tell me, what kind of foreign policy knowledge does Obama have again? Oh wait, that's why he chose Biden as his running mate. No matter what you people say, I believe it was a good choice, because she represents something new and exciting, just like Obama himself!
Obama
It is interesting that she would use his whole name..kind of makes you wonder..I noticed that she does NOT use the whole names of the other candidates but several times I have seen postings on this board..so what if he has a middle name that is Arabic..
Obama
He's just a talking head, somebody's puppet, aint nothing without his teleprompter and written speeches...gimme a break!
Right, Obama has run nothing!
nm
And yet Obama wants to
help these people so they can continue to sit on their butts and do something while the rest of us bust our humps. No thank you!
Obama: It's about you, not me."
With RNC behind us now, dems are faced with the daunting challenge of making the 2008 election a referendum on issues, not a personality contest. Here are 2 links that got thrown under the bash bus.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/97198/top_ten_most_disturbing_facts_and_impressions_of_sarah_palin/
http://www.alternet.org/election08/97350/8_more_shocking_revelations_about_sarah_palin/?page=3
Though the title of these articles may lead one to conclude it is more about Palin bashing, there is a gold mine of pertinent information to be found there. Embedded within the articles are more links that are overwhelming on first inspection, but well worth the time it takes to review them. Laid out there between the lines is a structured blueprint for facing the upcoming 60 days with effective campaign strategy.
There is another post that also got buried in the mud which will be brought back up to the top momentarily on issues. If it get buries again, it will be brought back up to the top again. The bashes it may inspire will be ignored. The issues will continue to get the focus.
There is another battleground in this election aside from the issues push. It is the one fought on the field of values and vision; specifically, the Obama vision versus the McCain/Palin vision of what kind of America they/we see in our futures and what sort of change each candidate promises to deliver. The link below is an article that addresses this subject. It is a self-effacing piece I believe dems should take to heart when considering how to frame their upcoming campaign tactics. Here's that link.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/97193/the_palin_choice%3A_the_reality_of_voters%27_minds/
The introduction to this post expresses a basic premise from which I will be operating. I will not be diminishing the power of Obama's message by indulging in petty squabbles, dead-end distractions, one-upmanship and a race to get the last word. There is important work here, people, and we best rolls up our sleeves and get started.
|
