I'm SOOOOOO glad this is finally coming out...
Put it all together:
1. Obama's spiritual advisor is a flat out racist saying God Damn America and the govt created AIDS to kill black people, Obama was married by this man, kids baptised and he went to his Church for 20 years.
2. His wife is proud of her country for the first time in her adult life finally this year...showing a trend that everyone around Obama pretty much can't stand America...they don't see our country the way many do...and to prove that:
3. Obama was very close to William Aires...how:
In 1995, During Obama's First State Senate Campaign, William Ayers And Wife Bernadine Dohrn Hosted A Meeting Of Chicago Liberals At Their Home For Obama, Which One Attendee Said Was Aimed At "Launching Him."
From March Of 1995 Until September Of 1997, Obama And Ayers Attended At Least Seven Meetings Together Relating To The Chicago Annenberg Challenge
In 1997, Obama Praised Ayers' Book On The Juvenile Justice System.
"[Obama And Ayers] Have Also Appeared Jointly On Two Academic Panels, One In 1997 And Another In 2001."
From 1999 To 2002, Obama Served With Ayers On The Board Of Directors For Woods Fund Of Chicago.
During The Time Obama And Ayers Served Together On The Woods Fund, Ayers Was Quoted Saying "I Don't Regret Setting Bombs ... I Feel We Didn't Do Enough
NOTE: Obama, Born August 14th, 1961, Was 40 Years Old When Ayers Was Quoted.
While Obama And Ayers Were Serving On The Woods Fund Together, Ayers Posed Standing On An American Flag For An Article In Chicago Magazine Entitled "No Regrets
Obama And Ayers Are Neighbors In Chicago's Hyde Park Neighborhood
Neighbors Have Said "It's Only Natural" That Obama Would Know Ayers, Who Often Opens His Home For Gatherings, As Obama And His Wife "Are A Part Of Our Neighborhood And Part Of Our Social Circle."
Monday, October 06, 2008
Obama and his friend the terrorist
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
So true, Game. Obama's pals were terrorists. When are Americans going to wake up and see that even four years of Obama might leave such a huge footprint in the government and judiciary. Please get out and vote.
The 60's radicals have a hold on our children, media, government and now our election.
Hockeymoms for Palin, puck Obama
"It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier," said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. "It's ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly."
This stuff is why I refer to you guys as a cult. This crap comes up every election season...clinton had a hit squad that killed 200 some people...Kerry didn't earn his metals and is the most liberal..Obamas a terrorist. If it doesn't work, and it won't maybe you will see that most people are on to electioneering. It's bullshit. It's easy to do the association game and Palin and McCain are just as able to be played. It's nonsense to play it though. If this is what is important to you then you need to grow up cuz this is the cartoon part of the campaign.
You try and dismiss legit facts by saying Obama is being called a terrorist...because you can defend all the terrible people he is so close to...
"This stuff is why I refer to you guys as a cult."
Sad, but true. One doesn't win elections by chasing rabbits. Obama wouldn't be winning if he wasted his time on Keating Five, or Palin's Apocalyptic Church that literally blessed her from witchcraft and thinks Alaska will be a refuge at the end of times.
One has to offer a *positive* vision, and ultimately a philosophy. Obama, to his credit, has done this extremely well. The GOP, well, they're offering state-capitalism, religious fundamentalism, and a belligerent foreign policy without a clear goal.
Jason, where do you believe you fit into Obama's "positive vision", exactly?
Goodness Jason, you actually speak as though you understand! There is always a way to link to unsavory people...if you know the game the 6 degrees of kevin bacon you know all you need to know about this. As a matter of fact a fund raiser for McCain served on the SAME board as Ayers and Obama!!!!
The University of Chicago has employed a terrorist! They must be a school for terrorists! Leo Strauss the godfather of Neocon thinking also taught at U of C. He must be a terrorist too! Student Paul Wolfowitz is a terrorist too! You are only convincing the cult.
Especially when things are as bad as they are people want solutions. Not bullshit. Jason is right, this is a big part of why he is losing. I think I told you early he was running a terrible campaign. It's getting terribler day after day, week after week.
If you read clown..er townhall I am sure you will know what this is about..if you dont read clown..er darn it!, Townhall then how can you be a raving nut cas..er good conservative...enjoy
http://heylookhear.com/Image/k-pax
hash--
I believe liberal democracy is a morally superior form of government when compared to theocracies and dictatorships. Obama feels they are morally equivalent. I believe in human liberty, creativity, and originality-- we should are the architects of our own lives. Obama wants everyone subordinated to universal comprehensive plans. I agree with Obama on 5-10% of issues tops.
McCain also has Democrat values-- he talks about sacrifice as it is something glorious in itself. McCain, like the Democrats, believes in a foreign policy of realpolitik, not freedom. McCain also thinks compromise is something good in itself, as if there are no right and wrong views in life. Obama merely applies these ideas consistently-- why should we give a shit about secular and progressive Iraqis? If sacrifice is good, shouldn't we be doing more sacrificing, starting with those who have the most? Why have judges who read the Constitution as is when the truth is in the mystical middle?
Obama goes right for the juggular and offers pure socialism -- he openly desires to abolish the "on your own society," he says the rich are oppressing the middle class apparently by virtue of having more and we need to end these inequalities, we should talk to socialist tyrants of other countries, not overthrow them, etc.
Well,Jason, I take that back..you sort of get it. It's not the aim of US liberals to promote socialism per se. It's to promote a fair and organized society, which anarchy and no ir very little government makes impossible. Our current circumstance regardless of which party is to blame was caused by a Lazzie Faire toward actions.
Yes, opposed to the on your own society. Not in a chase of socialism but of a stand on moral values. Which also indicates that moral superiority is more a point of view than a black and white issue. There are a few things that most all can agree on of course but beyond that in a free land people should be able to find their way spiritually how they wish. That is what freedom is about. Another word that is obviously not totally black and white. It is all a semantic game. I have worked with words for my entire life and I know how people use and manipulate them. I'm not easily fooled. Sean Hannity may be the biggest semantic criminal on the planet.
Yes,I agree both parties see foreign policy as realpolitik and not on freedom.
McWar claims Teddy Roosevelt as his hero. Personally I don't see him following him much.
Here is what Historys' greatest Republican(in my estimation) had to say about what you discuss in your final paragraph...From his speech called "A New Nationalism"
At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. ....At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth.
I agree with THAT ONE.
Ron--
1) Neoconservatives reject realpolitik as a foreign policy. Realpolitik asserts that while there can be rational means, all ends are matters of preference. In other words, while there can be retail sanity, there is only wholesale madness. Neoconservatives reject this Machiavellian position-- this holds true of Leo Strauss, Scoop Jackson, Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, etc.
Progressives want to go back to the days of Kissinger and Richard Nixon, where we support dictators, not out of necessity, but out of principle, the goal being not democracy and freedom, but self-interest and stability.
The moral relativism that you also asserted, coincidentally, is a doctrine that might makes right. After all, if there is no morality, but just moral-for-Germans, and moral-for-Frenchmen, what reason is there for Germans to respect the lives of Frenchmen?
2) Govt promoting home ownership as a compassionate goal through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is the direct cause of the current financial situation.
3) We can give socialism the label fairness if you choose. If socialism is fairness, then I support unfairness-- equality under the law, the right to life, the right to liberty, freedom of speech, and so forth. If fairness involves subordinating everyone to universal comprehensive plans, I want nothing to do with it, for I prefer rights, not uniforms.
You,are back to as usual totally missing the point. First I offered no opinion positive or negative on realpolitik and while I would disagree with your view of the neo con position there I'm not willing to waste my time arguing about it. What is might..what is right...is everyone required to be of the same religon..that seems non freedom like to me..what is freedom. Fannie mae and freddie mac are only one part of what is happening..other wise it wouldn't be world wide and is not the direct cause. The direct cause is a lazzie faire economic system with an anything goes attitude. Just what you rail against elsewhere. What is liberty, what makes freedom of speech. Your final sentences makes you an anarchist. Most of these are rhetorical questions. It's about semantics pal. If you think morality and fairness and freedom mean the same thing to everybody then...well look at our discussion to see the fallacy in that.
"We can give socialism the label fairness if you choose. If socialism is fairness, then I support unfairness."
Labels, symbols, thats words and the difference we all apply to the meaning behind them..the essence of semantics. Narrowminded people don't get it though. Far to large a concept for them.
By the way I am not in favor of socialism any more than you are in favor of anarchy but I don't expect you to understand that.
I'm still at wonderment as I read again. Are you in favor of a strict interpretation of rules or no rules at all or what? Not a rhetorical question. All I can figure is you seem to think you have the universal key to right and wrong and true morality that should be followed by all...which again, is just what you seem to be railing against.
ron--
If we disagree about the truth of a proposition, it doesn't mean that there are no answers. It simply implies that at least one of us is wrong. And if I'm wrong, I would prefer to be shown what's right.
I'm definitely not an anarchist. I'm a neo-conservative. My heart is liberal, my brain is conservative. Like the classical liberals, I believe in science, individualism, and all of that good stuff. However, a tragic sense of man's limitations militates against any utilitarian optimism on my part.
I'm not an anarchist because I believe in the limited state. I believe that men should be independent of the arbitrary will of others. I call this liberty-- you can give it the label slavery if you prefer. I also assert a society ruled by laws, not men, is the best way to approximate this ideal. Anarchists do not believe in any state at all.
A socialist wants worker control over the means of production, either through local committees (Soviets) or through elected representatives (social democracy). Socialists of the latter variety think it is fair to have the government nationalize the largest sectors of the economy, from healthcare to finance to energy.
Most leftists in European countries openly call themselves socialists. Here in the United States leftists are more often than not like you-- they have a guilty conscience, since this Republic was founded on eliminating taxes, limiting state power, open markets, local control/self-government-- the spirit of being able to customize your own life.
True there are answers to every question but I would disagree that one of us is always wrong. One of us may be wrong, we may both be wrong and we may each be right according to our own situation or circumstance...as far as the rest I am afraid you have lost me.
I would like to thank you for something resembling an adult discussion on some thing that actually matters though.
Much of what passes for important to rightists is inane to me and the approach seems self righteous authoritarian and in particularly, demonizing, to the point of not allowing a respect for the free exchange of ideas.
I can be guilty myself. If I get respect I give it. If I don't..well I was a child once too and can act like one just as well as the next. Lately I have found rather than get angry I might as well just joke about it cuz I'll get about as far.
Thanks again for something a little more rational even if we disagree.
Oh..as far as if I am a socialist or not....The above statement from Roosevelt is precisely how I feel. You can label it as you wish.
Ron, send me adult comments and you'll get some back...lately you have not done that
yes, i have left jokes cuz you lead off by writing your posts which always seem to have the purpose of demonstrating your hate for me and people like me. You spend your time on people rather than ideas..move to the purpose of ideas and your ideals rather than people and we can have some adult comments.
Not mine but you will find that it applies in most all circumstances
Small minds talk about people
Average minds talk about events
Great minds talk about ideas.
Post a Comment