RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

and he's met Bigfoot:

if a qualified man is disqualified from getting a job and a less qualified man gets it because of affirmative action it is valid for him to be angry at affirmitive action. it is not valid for him to blame all blacks people, just those people that supported affirmative action no matter their color. the individuals that supported the injustice.


if a white guy's daughter get's raped by a black man, he shouldnt hate all black people its not all black peoples fault, but the individual.

if a black guy is fired by a white guy who is a racist, he should hate the racist idiot, not all white people it isn't the white peoples fault but the individual.

individuals are individuals, blaming their race is in and of itself racist. Barack had his kids listening to that crap for since they were born. He can change his tune now that he is in an election, but rational people understand otherwise.

it's hardly playing the race card to simply mention it.

just don't let me catch you wearing a Harvard shirt. you didn't go there, you don't have the right.

I've been to paradise, but I've never been to me.

National Review:

• The problem of Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers will not go away.
  
  Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s, turning fugitive when a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally exploded in a New York townhouse. Prior to that, Ayers and his cohorts succeeded in bombing the Pentagon.
  
  Ayers and Dohrn remain unrepentant for their terrorist past. Ayers was pictured in a 2001 article for Chicago magazine, stomping on an American flag, and told the New York Times just before 9/11 that the notion of the United States as a just and fair and decent place “makes me want to puke.”
  
  Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers’s and Dohrn’s home, Obama has dismissed Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama.

This sounds a lot like Barack Hussein Obama's early attempts to minimize his relationship with Rev. Wright.

There were anti-government people in the 60's? No way! And being against the Federal Government is not the same as being anti-American, you know. But, nice try...

Oh, and I'm certain the National Review is the most fair-and-balanced news outlet, ev-ar!

Looks like I broke Pro. He couldn't answer the charge against the Obamessiah so he dredged up the "I hate Bush" line and an ad hominem attack on my source.

But, anyway, more on Ayers, this time from unquestionably not conservative New York Times:

• ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago.
  
  So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.

And from the non-partisan Politico:

• "Ayers was a terrorist. Bernardine Dohrn was a terrorist. Ayers has never offered one word of apology — he glories in it, thinks it’s terrific. And that to me is not what I would call acceptable or mainstream behavior,” said Dan Polsby, a former law professor at Northwestern who is now dean of George Mason University Law School.
  
  “If Obama takes a different view on that — well, OK, that’s data about Obama.”

But don't worry, Pro, I'm sure Obama will throw his terrorist buddy under the bus soon enough... if there's still room left under the thing, that is.

no he didn't. you posted an article from a conservative "news" source and he did what you do any time a liberal article is posted.
does that mean mem and whomod broke you everytime you attack moveon.org? And he didn't say "I hate bush" as his argument, he directly responded to the article you posted, by questioning the kool-aid you drank of anyone questioning America being unpatriotic. I guess your "I hate Obama" avatar means he broke you.


he did what he believed was right. would you prefer he spent his time coked up and drunk driving?


what exactly did Obama do? last I checked he was a bit young to be involved with ANY 60's radical activity. Did he do anything illegal, aid in any actions? How many people are dead because of the actions of Bush's cabinet (not counting this war). Take their whole careers, how many people died because they were doing what they believed was right?


Again, guilt by association is your attack on Obama. Donald Rumsfeld and the others in the Reagan administration worked with Saddam and Osama. They funded them, trained them, and even gave Saddam the foundations of whatever WMDs ever existed in Iraq. Why won't you condemn them? Is this a double standard, is it because he's black, or is this "I hate Obama" rhetoric from you just another sign that you've been broken (using your own logic).

Rather than deal with the fact that Obama is apparently friends, and trying to cover up that friendship, with an unrepentent terrorist, Pro--and you--started calling Bush a cokehead, even though he had nothing to do with the thread. That's a classic page out of the "I Hate Bush" rhetoric book.



Pretty much every politically motivated terrorist is fighting for a cause. Osama Bin Laden does what he thinks is right.

And, as always, you're quick to defend those terrorists whenever they attack Americans.



Ray had to resort to the race card. If Pro failed, Ray failed spectacularly.

wow. you just cut up my post to make up your own argument.
bravo, counselor. bravo.

Thank you, Ray. Apology accepted.

and you completely cut out the whole point that Bush also has friends with colored histories and questionable motives. but they have Rs next to their names....

See, you're back to trying to make the thread about Bush. Proving my point yet again.

Further making my point is the following:

Rumsfeld, et al, dealt with Saddam in the 1980s solely as a way to advance the interests of this nation against Iran. Later, when Hussein was revealed to be an enemy of our interests, they disavowed him and even went to war against him. In each case you attack them. Since you attack both their alliance with Saddam and their antipathy towards him, it would seem that it's another example of your "Damn Republicans no matter what" attitude. Or perhaps your "the enemy of the US is my friend" attitude.

In contrast, long after Ayers was revealed to be an enemy of our nation's interests, and even after Ayers refused to disavow his terrorist past, Obama made it a point to befriend him and, like Wright, treat him as a political mentor. And, it should be noted, I'm on record here as criticizing Bush for often prizing loyalty over competence, including with AG Gonzales.

But, as a I said before, don't worry. It's likely Obama will have to "disavow" this mentor for political expediency also.

see you're just avoiding the actual arguments to make this about me. and you're saying that it's somehow wrong to mention the current president while we discuss the qualifications of a candidate for the job. are you so insecure about the man you've spent 8 years loving and supporting? are you just another abused woman?
I guess we broke you afterall.

Ray, I don't see where you've made an argument, other than defending an admitted terrorist and attacking a guy who isn't running.

no. i think we need to talk about pulling the plug, gramps.

Ray had to fabricate quotes from me because he couldn't address the points I raised.

I win again!

I guess I won when you proved you could only handle heavily edited quotes and pre-planned/overused arguments.

Bickering aside, I do find fault for Obama being friends with a known remorseful terrorist. I also have problems as previously discussed with a man raising his children in such a racist church. I don't put a lot of salt in personal life vs politics, but in these two cases his decision making skills have to be called into question.

Come on. Really. Take a moment. Come on. You're starting to sound like Halo, now.

G-Man...or whatever your real name is....let me ask you a question: Why are you so threatened when someone has a different belief or point-of-view than you do? Is it because you are shaky in your own convictions, and the only way to convince yourself of your beliefs is to attempt to discredit/argue/taunt those that don't share them? Or, are you so arrogant to actually believe you are correct in all thinking? I mean, really man.

At no point did I attack you. At all. I simply pointed out that:

A) So there were subversive groups that opposed the Federal Government in the 1960's. Big shock! I think it's pretty common knowledge. So, is that to say that they should, in fact, not have any friends or relationships? Is it a big deal if Obama knows this guy? What about Bush's sordid past? What about his disreputable friends (you know, all the Repubs that get charged with federal crimes)? How is this any different? I mean, other than you hate Obama, Liberals, the Democratic Party, and generally everyone that disagrees with you.

B) The "attack on your source" was no more or less than you do when someone posts a "factual" link from a Far Left website. Your own medicine bitter?

...and...

C) Nowhere in that post did I say "I hate Bush". Nowhere. You're simply lying, no doubt about it. It's factual and right there on the screen. What I noticed was that you change the title of these threads to your whim. And, in this one, it's all anti-Obama. So, when you change the title (for no apparent reason, mind you...and please, don't insult my intelligence by trying to say it was 'needed' or anything...we all know the truth) to slant Obama, I see no reason why mine can't point out a fact about your Republican Lord & Master George W. Bush. What's wrong? Does it offend you? Does it make you angry in some way to be treated as you treat others?



Don't worry yourself, G. You miss the point if you think I'm defending Obama instead of voicing my opposition to your constant, Right-slanted, unfair, bullying propaganda that you laughingly try to sell as "neutral" or "fair".

If anyone is "broken" (and I'm pretty sure we're all past that term, but whatever), it's only you when you feel the need to taunt and ridicule instead of conceding the truth about your petty views. Because, let's face it...that's exactly what we belittle guys like Halo for.....(well, with him it's also that he's an ignorant child...but, I've seen evidence of your intelligence, so that doesn't apply for you).

Try not to fly off the handle again the next time I post one or two sentences questioning the validity of one of your propoganda posts. It will go a long way in helping everyone here get along...

what specific wright comments did you find "racist?"

In a lot of ways, Obama's friendship with Ayers is worse than the one with Wright.

Wright may be a vile racist, but he's a former Marine who fought for his country and has never, to my knowledge, planted bombs and committed terrorist acts.

Ayers may have committed his terrorist acts a long time ago, but he still brags about them to this day, including in an article that appeared September 11, 2001. He obviously still holds the view that attacks on innocent Americans are justified.

This is yet another example of Obama's poor judgement when it comes to his allies. At best, he's befriending these lowlifes for political expediency. At worse he secretly shares at least some of their views.

Pro and Ray, for all their bluster, probably realize this. That's why they're sputtering about George W. Bush and whatnot.

While I would agree about the pastor, I'm not certain it surprises me. It wasn't so much that the pastor was anti-American, but that he's anti-WHITE-American. You'll find that type of resentful racism in many black churches and/or groups. I'm not stereotyping, you understand. It's simply what it is. Should Obama have gotten out if he didn't agree with it? Absolutely. Am I convinced he carries a racial chip on his shoulder? Yes. Is that bad? Honestly...I hate it. I hate that there are threads in society that perpetuate this whole "race" idea. It's the fucking 21st century, and we still can't seem to get past it. I don't know what to say on that. Am I convinced that Obama is anti-American because of the church/pastor? No. Again, I think it's a racial motive, versus a political/idealogical motive.

Having a relationship with Bill Ayers is very radical, I would agree. And, although neither has confirmed their "relationship" with each other, I will go ahead and give the Right the benefit of the doubt on this and say that they're probably friends. However, even given that, I don't feel this is an issue. First of all, Bill Ayers never killed anyone. He blew up a statue quite a few times. But, he never took a life. Second, he and the Weatherman Group weren't opposed to Americans. They were opposed to what they percieved to be an American Imperialism in the Federal Government. As I pointed out in my initial response to G, there's a BIG difference between being opposed to America, and being opposed to the Federal Government. One does not equate to the other. And hating one does not equate to hating America. I, myself, think the Federal Government is a corrupt cancer that will be the eventual downfall of America as we know it. But, that's an entirely different issue here.

Basically, when it comes down to it, I don't agree with lumping the pastor in with the Bill Ayers thing. And, I also don't think the Bill Ayers is anything. it's a non-story. Now, if Ayers plants a new bomb and kills people, then we'll talk...

"I hate white people and believe they should all die. Except for Vanilla Ice, man that guy can helluva rap!"

-Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Fear-Mongering!

Show me where he wants to kill "innocent Americans".



Again an attack/insult, and still without responding to my rebuttal. Thanks for being mature, G-Man. You're all class. Especially when you're floundering for steady ground to attack from...

I heard it was Barry Manilow, but whatever...

There's nothing inherently wrong with that viewpoint, Pro.

However, Ayers took it a lot farther when he started trying to blow up innocent people. And, unlike a lot of his comrades from the 1960s who have expressed remorse for their violent acts, Ayers is still bragging about it and saying he wished he had planted more bombs.

It's those actions that make him such a poor choice of friend for Obama.

I asked him what specific quotes wright said that he finds "racist." He responded with a joke. Will you respond by posting the quotes you find so offensive or just not quote this part and say you won?


Do you know either man personally? You're condemning them for their beliefs, for their views.


A vile racist? All I've seen from him is comments reflecting the sentiments of many black people about the flawed history of this country.


All I've found on him was that he helped blow up a statue which destroyed some area windows. You compare him with the WTC attacks, but get all bitchy if I dare say anything about Bush and his people who have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands through their actions.
Ayers seems to believe America is flawed, he believes (and I disagree with him) that grandiose acts like blowing up a statue are a way to get attention. That is not the same as blowing up a marketplace full of people.


Do you agree with every single thing every single one of your friends thinks and feels? Haven't you ever had a friend who you had disagreements with but ultimately found that they were good people who challenged you? Maybe Obama has long arguments with him about how Ayers was wrong, but finds those arguments push him to define his own stances. Maybe Wright is a good guy who acts a little silly on stage. Someone pointed out that in over 20 years and hundreds of thousands of words, people have chosen to focus on about 20-30 words.



I think that maybe we realize that Obama does not exist in some vacuum where only his actions and friends are held to scrutiny. The reason you don't like Bush being brought up-despite the fact that every candidate is compared to the incumbent-is because Bush is worse. Bush has caused more deaths than Obama, Bush's friends (the people he chose for his cabinet) have a history of questionable actions some of which have caused death that is far worse than some preacher speaking about race.

I can't argue with that. but if that's what you believe, then why do you support (or at least not openly oppose) agendas (e.g. 'universal health care') that consolidate more and more power within that very same federal government?

by g-man's rules if you hate the government than you hate america.

because the completely free market with no government oversight and no taxes and no social programs does not work with hundreds of millions of people. for every person who abuses welfare there's 100 people who need it to get a leg up and they work hard to get out of it. those people have children. those people aren't all driftless losers manipulating the system, a lot of them are people in a bad spot accepting a hand up from the government to get them out of that spot.
universal healthcare is a good thing. completely privatized medicine is about money, government run healthcare has more of an obligation to help the poor live.

the real problem is corporations. i'm not against business, or even big business, but corporations are legally people with a legal obligation to survive and that means they can do so much evil and not be stopped. government regulation is in response to these bad acts. they regulate the water and air pollution because companies were heavily polluting, to the degree that people got sick.
The government will always be big and powerful because they have the military, because they write the rules that we have to live by. so they might as well be using that might to at least attempt to help the people they govern.
taxes are part of living in such a large society. if you want to live in society then you need to be a part of that society, you need to help your neighbor in need and they need to help you in need. taxes pay for the programs that help you when in need (911, military, etc) and they also help others.

We've been over this before, Ray. That's you're idealized image of government run healthcare, and it's bullshit. Current government healthcare is also about money. If it needs money to run it, it's going to be about how much money it spends just like privatized.

I'm not against government oversight, but I don't want it controlling it.

It's a pretty sad day when we're supposed to ignore someone's morals when forming an opinion on them.

But, what "violent acts" are you talking about? Blowing up a statue, twice? Both times, there weren't even any injuries, let alone deaths. So, what are you talking about when you say "trying to blow up innocent people"?

When you say government healthcare is about money, I assume you mean taxes. If so, then I have to say that higher taxes are okay with me, as long as I get a tighter, dedicated healthcare system out of it. Just saying...