Sunday, May 04, 2008

An Open Letter to My Democrat Friends:

I'm going to state the facts as best I can.

Barack Obama is a virtual unknown. He's served less than one term in the United States Senate -- having announced his run for the Presidency before he was even eighteen months in office.

During that time we know almost nothing about his plans --much less what he will actually pursue if he became the most powerful person in human history and even less about what he'll be able to accomplish.

We know he favors "hope" over "fear" (but, of course, so did Neville Chamberlain.) We know he's a big fan of "change" yet change to what we're not quite sure. We know he speaks of being a "uniter" yet whenever the Senate saw efforts at bipartisanship -- such as the "gang of fourteen" -- not only was Obama nowhere to be found, his voting record is the most radical leftist of all US Senators.

While we don't know much more about Obama's plans or accomplishments we DO know the people who helped make him what he is today. We know that he's in bed with mobsters -- his home purchased only with the aid of Tony Rezko. We know that his longtime mentor is a Jew-hater, white-hater and an American hater who holds Louis Farrakhan in the highest regard. We DO know that he's a colleague, friend (and probably more) to unrepentant terrorists like William Ayers.

So, given his lack of experience, his refusal to work with people on the other side of the aisle, his close relationship with hatemongers, murderers and mobsters, just what exactly would it take to get you to question his candidacy and his elevation to the most powerful position in the history of the world?

70 comments:

Larry Blivins said...

So, given his lack of experience, his refusal to work with people on the other side of the aisle, his close relationship with hatemongers, murderers and mobsters, just what exactly would it take to get you to question his candidacy and his elevation to the most powerful position in the history of the world?


That's a relatively easy question. If your "givens" were actually givens rather than shrill, overheated nonsense, I might stay home. Of course, that would not mean that I'd be voting for John McKeating, the senile, rubber diaper, scary war monger guy with the really crazy minister buddy, Hagee, and the really dangerous terrorist friend, G. Gordon Liddy.

Minarchist said...

what is more telling about liberals than the fact that they actually believe associating with a minister that preaches against homosexuality and the muslim enemy with whom we are currently at war is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as associating with a minister that preaches against the very country the candidate seeks to govern.?

blivins said...

a minister that preaches against homosexuality and the muslim enemy with whom we are currently at war is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as associating with a minister that preaches against the very country the candidate seeks to govern.?

Who says it's the same? It's much worse when you actually applaud the destruction of American cities because they're like...uh reservoirs of sin!!!

Anonymous said...

Never has so much been said, with so few words, that convey so much!

Bob "Winston" Barker

blivins said...

When you say senile, you're not joking: McCain States the Truth: Iraq War Has Been for Oil, Then Quickly Backtracks. "It was the second time in as many days that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had to clear up his comments. On Thursday, he backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year's deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis." 5/4

Which is why the GOP is in beeg trouble:

Democrats pick up a Republican congressional seat in Louisiana in a special election, increasing their majority. With Cazayoux's victory, Louisiana's seven-member delegation has three Democrats for the first time since 2004, and for only the second time in 12 years. This will help Obama, because the Republicans thought that they could race bait a congressional candidate to the likely Democratic nominee. It backfired. 5/4

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

First, I'm not you're friend. Second, more personality-based attacks and guilt-by-association nonsense? Is that really all you people have?

Here's what I know about John McCain - he has been exactly wrong about Iraq, forever, and he has no plan for the economy other than "let's dole out more tax cuts", the same nonsense that has gotten us into this mess. Thos are the two most important issues in the 2008 election, and on both of them McCain's policies are bad for America. Here's what I know about Barack Obama - he has been exactly right about Iraq, and he actually gives a shit about fixing the economy, with realistic solutions other than "let's pander to the American people with a Gas Tax holiday while our national debt continues to climb". And you wonder why you people can't win elections anymore. The American people can see through your fear-mongering bullshit, and your personality-based attacks, to see that you have absolutely no plan for fixing the problems that plague this country. But keep posting, please, because with every post you prove to everyone who might read this sight just how little of a clue you have about what Americans actually care about.

blossom said...

Migod, Evan, you'll never be more than a pathetic lightweight if you can't look at the situation honestly and tell people who aren't already sold why they should see it your way. With this unbalanced silliness, all you do is show yourself up as onesided and silly, yourself.

emilio "tungsten" carbide said...

Well done and not at all half baked.

Anonymous said...

blivins..Is that 8 pt lead I just read McCain has over Obama some of that 'beeeg' trouble you talk about?

good post, minarchist

Frankie Machine said...

Got a guy stupid enough to take a poll this early seriously? ...seriously?

frankie said...

just went up and read minichrist's "good" post...haha...he made a fool of himself...one of those small gov guys who likes big brudder...go figger...only grotesques left on the Grand Ol Potty.

Minarchist said...

Frankie,

How did I indicate I liked "big brother", what makes you think I'm GOP, and what did I say in my post that's false and foolish? Could you please provide specific examples so I can engage you in conversation?

Also, while the minichrist jab was cute the first 500 times people tried it, almost all minarchists and economic libertarians are atheists and not the type of 'atheists' whiny lefties who are just mad at the judeo-christian god for being mean, but believe in all kinds of spiritual gobblydygook and "Ideas" pretend to be, but actual ones.

J'accuse said...

I'm going to state the facts as best I can. (Evan Sayet)

Is this your best? Sad, really sad.

Anonymous said...

"An Open Letter to My Democrat Friends:"

You're drunk when you write this shit, right?

Anonymous said...

"An Open Letter to My Democrat Friends:"

You're drunk when you write this shit, right?

Anonymous said...

go directly to YouTube, search for 'John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,' and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive. What you'll find is a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is 'the Great Whore,' Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking 'the blood of the Jewish people.' That's because the Great Whore represents 'the Roman Church,' which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust."

blossom said...

and what did I say in my post that's false and foolish?

Well, I guess Frankie's not here right now, but this part qualified:

what is more telling about liberals than the fact that they actually believe associating with a minister that preaches against homosexuality and the muslim enemy with whom we are currently at war is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as associating with a minister that preaches against the very country the candidate seeks to govern.?


Blivins answered that quite well. Hagee is far worse. A real America hater, and he preaches against Xtians more than he does Muslims...who by the way are NOT the enemy.

blossom said...

Oh, and I love it when you tell us what kind of atheists leftists are when of course you have no clue whatsoever. The overwhelming number of leftists are not atheists at all and most are members of various churches (mores the pity) but they aren't usually members of the insane unChristian churches of the right.

Minarchist said...

Apparently you believe i wrote "all leftists are atheists" rather than writing that atheists of the minarchist/libertarian stripe are one variant whereas atheists of the leftist stripe are of another.

protestants and catholics were at war for centuries. protestants do not consider catholics christian. maybe you've heard of something called "the reformation". mainline protestantism is has always been anti-catholic. being catholic has nothing to do with the US or being american. it is in no way reflective of being anti-american to be theologically anti-catholic and is in no way comparable to reverend wrights jeremaids against actual AMERICA, by name and her government--the government over which obama seeks to preside.

if you believe it is, please state your reasoning so that i can understand.

and thank you for showing my point again by stating that muslims are not the enemy. it's not that you are right or wrong, it's that you are merely demonstrating clearly that that's what the left thinks.

blossom said...

Wow...mini, you are so muddled and uneducated that it's difficult to untangle all this nonsense so I'm only going to waste time on one ridiculous point. Of course prots know Caths are Xtian!!! And I know far more about Luther, the Reform., the counter-Ref, and the inquisition and European religious wars than you do. They disagree with them but certainly don't claim anything that silly. They also disagree vehemently with other prot denominations. In fact it's funny to hear them backstab each other when they don't have Muslims to worry about.

b said...

and thank you for showing my point again by stating that muslims are not the enemy. it's not that you are right or wrong, it's that you are merely demonstrating clearly that that's what the left thinks.


Oh, certainly...you're very welcome. Did you mean we don't buy into a silly religious war? Are you one of those people who think that all Muslims support terror or that the Arabs don't have serious grievances against us?...because that's just for children who don't want to own their mistakes.

Anonymous said...

Whether they attend religious services or not, 91 percent of Americans say they believe in God, according to a poll conducted this spring by Princeton Survey Research Associates for Newsweek. Voters say they would not vote for an atheist. Sixty-two percent of respondents in the Newsweek poll said they would not vote for an atheist as did 78 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Democrats.

Link

91% of Americans believe in god. So, where do you get this deal about leftists being atheists?

snark said...

As for McCain, this coming from his own wife: Her 71-year-old husband is “not the best of drivers,” so she takes the wheel most times.
McCain can't drive

Don't tell me he ain't senile.

snark said...

What do you want to bet that McCain called his wife a "cunt," or worse (since this was no ruffling of his hair), again after she made the statement about his driving? Hot-headed nutcase, all right.

Frankie Machine said...

Yeah, what Blossom said. I just checked minichrist's ( hahaha good one, huh? Frankie's rollin) site.

I misjudged him; he's a different kind of crackpot than I first thought...one of those naifs who think 6 billion people can roam around doing whatever the hell they want without regulation. Yeah, that'll work.

Schuyler said...

Well, I had to drop by and see what the geeks--and, I DON'T mean it in the more modern-day usage of the word--were down to. Teh usual it appears: baseless assertions; guilt by association founded on the six degrees of Kevin Bacon and (what else?) Lies. Eat any chicken heads lately, Evan?

Jim said...

I'm always amused/saddened when I read the comments section here. Every time I come here, I hope beyond hope that, maybe, *this time*, a liberal will make a valid counterpoint involving the facts instead of name-calling and hand-waving. But so far, each new comment I read lives up to the same low expectations set by the previous ones.
Come one, if it is so easy to debunk Evan's claims, please do so, with facts and real arguments instead of ad hominem BS and whining.

f m said...

if it is so easy to debunk Evan's claims, please do so, with facts and real arguments instead of ad hominem BS and whining.


Jim pretending we haven't already done that.

Schuyler said...

Why is it that the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington?

Sydney said...

Jim says: if it is so easy to debunk Evan's claims, please do so, with facts and real arguments instead of ad hominem BS and whining.

"Evan's claims" are just that, assertions with no basis in fact, reason or logic. So, you are asking people to debunk that for which Evan offers no support. Silly boy.

Jim said...

Uh huh...

So, Senator Obama has served more than one term in Senate? He didn't announce his run for President just 18 months into office? He doesn't have the most socialist voting record in Senate?
Or do you mean he *isn't* associated with Rev. Wright and several other people of extremely questionable backgrounds?
Perhaps you disagree with his comments about Sen. Obama's lack of experience?
Hmmm, no, I'm seeing several EASILY verifiable facts that Evan has stated, and some conclusions he has drawn from them. From the liberal left, I have seen insults and claims of arguments that have not been made. In other words, *exactly* what I would expect of liberals, claiming to win a debate without ever actually debating.

Sydney said...

Well, Jim, you are going to have to define what you mean by experience since none of them have held the position of President of the United States. Therefore, none of them have experience by that definition. The only one of them to have occupied the White House is Hillary Clinton. So, what do you mean by experience?

Btw, you have already been given the response to Obama's connections. Please explain McCain and Hagee.

Sydney said...

I meant, of course, held the position.

Jim said...

The more time you spend in U.S. Senate, the more experience you have with how Federal government works (or doesn't) as opposed to State government. It is far more common for Federal Senators to work closely with the President than State legislators. So in that regard, the longer you are in Senate, the more experience you attain in Federal matters. Unfortunately, none of the candidates have experience running cities (Mayors) or states (Govenors) and that is why those offices are the most commonly elected President.
So, by experience, it is experience with Federal matters and an understanding of the workings of Congress and D.C. in general that is referred to.
While many people scoff at Sen. Clinton's reference to being in the White House 8 years with her husband, I actually do give that some weight (for what it's worth) because, as First Lady, she *did* have first hand experience with watching how the Office of President is handled and many of the things involved.
And as Senator McCain was not mentioned ANYWHERE in the original post, but, instead, the final question asked was "what exactly would it take to get you to question his candidacy and his elevation to the most powerful position in the history of the world?" there is no reason for me to make any statements as to who Sen. McCain is or is not involved with. In fact, that is called redirection (or misdirection.) Former President Clinton used it to great political advantage. I have seen little answer for Sen. Obama's associations. *STRONG* associations. Rev. Wright married the Obamas and baptized his children. For those brought up with a church background, that is an exceptionally strong connexion. So no, I have not seen most of Sen. Obama's connexions explained, merely waved away.
But, as an afternote, if Sen. McCain is associated with questionable individuals, I think that should be just as stringently pursued by the media and he needs to come out and denounce those people in no uncertain terms. Otherwise, he needs to be subject to the same attacks that Sen. Obama is under.

frankie machine said...

MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan claimed that if Sen. Barack Obama (IL) wins the Democratic presidential nomination, Republicans will "tear him apart because ... he has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate." Buchanan was presumably referencing the National Journal's 2007 vote rankings that claimed Obama was the "most liberal senator in 2007," but he did not mention that the Journal changed its methodology and has acknowledged a flaw in a previous vote rating. Buchanan also did not note a study that ranked Obama as tied with Sen. Joe Biden as the 10th "most liberal" senator last year.

So much for that "fact." too bad, since I wish he did have the most liberal record...in these extreme right wing times, that would put him only moderately left of any reasonable center. As for the other facts...who cares? Most are wildly exaggerated, or irrelevant and not nearly as damning as the connections that McKeating has. It'd be nice if he had more experience but brains, ability and political orientation are far more important.

frankie said...

Are you really so simple that you think we'd vote for a war mongering right wing hump because he had a lot of experience? As for "waving away" O's connections, that is all they deserve. Do you actually think that Sayet's reicho smear by association is going to be something we care much about...it gets the reaction it deserves.

Anonymous said...

If you really want a literal answer, here's what would make me question Obama...if he had the record, political views, insanity,senility and corrupt cronies that McCain has.

sydney said...

The more time you spend in U.S. Senate, the more experience you have with how Federal government works,


Is that why Bush is such a failure?

sydney said...

Good comment, Anon.

rachel said...

Mr. Sayet....the lefties LOVE Obama for the very reasons you questioned! He's everything that is lightweight and they relate to that. Lefties are merely predictable contrarians without a survival instinct.

blossom said...

Oh yes, rachel, that GW is a real heavyweight. While I haven't written off Hillary, Obama, in fact, shows real signs of being a heavyweight...demonstrated by his stand against the war from the start, his understanding of the environmental problems and everything else for that matter. He gets it and he knows how to make others see it...he's got great political instincts...very important for a leader. The fact that he has managed to get where he is while still being so young is the strongest indicator of that and a very good sign for the future. BTW, I doubt anyone here actually takes a Bush supporter seriously...you must have a major impairment to still be one after these eight horrible years.

blossom said...

BTW, funny remark about survival instincts...we brought you poor people out of the trees and have made every major leap forward that makes the modern world modern. Our only mistake was thinking we could put any of that stuff in your hands and have it used responsibly.

John said...

Speaking on behalf of liberals everywhere, Mr. Sayet, we simply hate your hatefulness, judge you to be judgmental, and will not to tolerate your intolerance.

Jim said...

I again notice that no one here has been able to give answer to Evan's question without invoking Senator McCain. In a real debate, your answers would be torn apart and exposed for the non-answers they are. If the question had been "Why is Obama more qualified/less qualified than McCain?" *then* you would have grounds for bringing him into the discussion. As it is, the question asked is how many more negatives would it take for you to actually question his legitimacy as a candidate? All I have seen is redirection (misdirection) in an attempt to make him "not as bad" as the other guy.
(One note of exception: it was pointed out, quite fairly, that the most liberal voting record claim is inaccurate according to the journal that put it out. I applaud this type of argument as it is based in the facts being presented as opposed to simply smearing the other person. That being said, I still find it interesting that someone running on the platform of being a moderate is tied with Senator Biden for a liberal voting record. Also, for a happy shock, look into Sen. Obama's Illinois voting record, or complete lack of same. He has skipped so many votes there, as well as D.C. as to be ridiculous.)
Truly, I would enjoy seeing a response to Evan's question that involved 1) Sen. Obama 2) the facts 3) no smearing of someone else to make him look better. In other words, an honest response to the question asked. I have no expectation of actually seeing this occur, however, as it has been consistantly shown that true debate is dead.

blivins said...

Truly, I would enjoy seeing a response to Evan's question that involved 1) Sen. Obama 2) the facts 3) no smearing of someone else to make him look better.


You have rec'd many answers...you just don't want to hear them. Obviously, McCain is relevant to bring up in comparison since he is the alternative. Sayet's lone fact is bogus, his other charges are based on smear by association and have been dismissed accordingly. We don't care if O is perfect, only that he is much better than the other candidate. That is why he is compared to McCain. Ask one specific question at a time instead of making false general charges and maybe you'll get an answer ...AGAIN.

bush-mccain don't support the troops said...

Doing the Troops Wrong
By Bob Herbert
The New York Times
Tuesday 06 May 2008

At the top of the list of no-brainers in Washington should be Senator Jim Webb's proposed expansion of education benefits for the men and women who have served in the armed forces since Sept. 11, 2001.

It's awfully hard to make the case that these young people who have sacrificed so much don't deserve a shot at a better future once their wartime service has ended.

Senator Webb, a Virginia Democrat, has been the guiding force behind this legislation, which has been dubbed the new G.I. bill. The measure is decidedly bipartisan. Mr. Webb's principal co-sponsors include Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Warner of Virginia, and Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.

(All four senators are veterans of wartime service - Senators Webb and Hagel in Vietnam, Warner in World War II and Korea and Lautenberg in World War II.)

Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are on board, as are Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House.

Who wouldn't support an effort to pay for college for G.I.'s who have willingly suited up and put their lives on the line, who in many cases have served multiple tours in combat zones and in some cases have been wounded?

We did it for those who served in World War II. Why not now?

Well, you might be surprised at who is not supporting this effort. The Bush administration opposes it, and so does Senator John McCain.

Reinvigorating the G.I. bill is one of the best things this nation could do. The original G.I. Bill of Rights, signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, paid the full load of a returning veteran's education at a college or technical school and provided a monthly stipend. It was an investment that paid astounding dividends. Millions of veterans benefited, and they helped transform the nation. College would no longer be the exclusive preserve of the wealthy and those who crowned themselves the intellectual elite.

As The New York Times wrote on the 50th anniversary of the G.I. bill: "Few laws have done so much for so many."

"These veterans were able to get a first-class future," Senator Webb told me in an interview. "But not only that. For every dollar that was spent on the World War II G.I. bill, seven dollars came back in the form of tax remunerations from those who received benefits."

Senator Lautenberg went to Columbia on the G.I. bill, and Senator Warner to Washington and Lee University and then to law school.

The benefits have not kept pace over the decades with the real costs of attending college. Moreover, service members have to make an out-of-pocket contribution - something over $100 a month during their first year of service - to qualify for the watered-down benefits.

This is not exactly first-class treatment of the nation's warriors.

The Bush administration opposes the new G.I. bill primarily on the grounds that it is too generous, would be difficult to administer and would adversely affect retention.

This is bogus. The estimated $2.5 billion to $4 billion annual cost of the Webb proposal is dwarfed by the hundreds of billions being spent on the wars we're asking service members to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's important to keep in mind is that the money that goes to bolstering the education of returning veterans is an investment, in both the lives of the veterans themselves and the future of the nation.

The notion that expanding educational benefits will have a negative effect on retention seems silly. The Webb bill would cover tuition at a rate comparable to the highest tuition at a state school in the state in which the veteran would be enrolled. That kind of solid benefit would draw talented individuals into the military in large numbers.

Senator Webb, a former secretary of the Navy who specialized in manpower issues, said he has seen no evidence that G.I.'s would opt out of the service in significantly higher numbers because of such benefits.

Senator McCain's office said on Monday that it was following the Pentagon's lead on this matter, getting guidance from Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Under pressure because of his unwillingness to support Senator Webb's effort, Senator McCain introduced legislation with substantially fewer co-sponsors last week that expands some educational benefits for G.I.'s, but far less robustly than Senator Webb's bill.

"It's not even close to the Webb bill," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, an advocacy group.

Politicians tend to talk very, very big about supporting our men and women in uniform. But time and again - whether it's about providing armor for their safety or an education for their future - we find that talk to be very, very cheap.

Jim said...

Blivins:

Again, your "answer" essentially has nothing to do with actual debate. You did not answer the question "WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR YOU TO QUESTION HIS CANDIDACY?" You've simply said why you would vote for him over Senator McCain. So, I again point out that you are refusing to answer the actual question posed, and instead rely on misdirection and straw men arguments. So, by such, I have made no false general charges. I have accurately portrayed the fact that you have NOT answered the *only* question asked, which, again, since you seem to have trouble understanding what the question is, was:
"WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR YOU TO QUESTION HIS CANDIDACY?"
*THAT* is the question. Instead, you continually deflect to "oh, this is not a 'fact'" or "McCain is worse"
Those are not answers to the question being asked. Those are defenses, excuses, and attacks of redirection.
At *no point* have I stated whether or not I think Senator McCain or Senator Clinton should qualify for candidacy, yet you still manage to attack as opposed to answering a simple question.
I find it interesting that if *I* were to dismiss your charges of Senator McCain, you would immediately jump upon that as excusing his behaviour, whereas somehow you are able to wave away the exact same concerns about Senator Obama. So which is it? If you wish to attack Sen. McCain for his associations, you must, by intellectual honesty and good debate, explain Sen. Obama's associations. Otherwise, you simply prove again you are unwilling to take part in a logical and forthright debate.

Anonymous said...

You're a very literal little simpleton, aren't you, Jim, or you would realize that the answer is that we don't find his associations very troubling at all. What would it take? I have questioned his candidacy from the start...so there's your answer in simple terms. Questioning, however, is not rejecting. What Psycho really means is gee, look at all this stuff I'm throwing out...why aren't you rejecting him? duh. Do you have another question?

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

That is a nicely succinct response.

Here is what it would take - for him to change his position on all of the important issues so as to more closely resemble John McCain. Then I would reject him. Does that answer the question?

Anonymous said...

S * E * N * I * L * E
M *c * C * A * I * N

Monday, May 05, 2008

McCain says "League of Nations" needs to deal with Iran
by John Aravosis (DC) · 5/05/2008 09:00:00 PM ET · Link
Discuss this post here: 20 Comments · reddit · FARK ·· Digg It!


Too bad the League of Nations was disbanded in 1946 when John McCain was ten years old. Oh, and one of our commenters added this:
Reminds me of Mr. Burns at the Post Office:

"Yes, I'd like to send this letter to the Prussian consulate in Siam by aeromail. Am I too late for the 4:30 autogyro?"

Jim said...

I find it interesting that *you* accuse *me* of being a simpleton when it took *this much time* to get you to answer a simple question. I, personally, did not care what the answer was, I was only interested in seeing if you actually *could* answer the question, as you avoided it for as long as you did.
"Questioning it from the beginning" is, in my opinion, a legitimate answer, and one that makes sense. Also, saying, "A 180 degree policy change is what it would take" is *also* a legitimate answer. Why you couldn't say that *from the beginning* is what puzzles me. Instead, you insult me, and others, when those two simple reponses do, indeed, answer the question.
Of interest is that you don't find his associations troubling at all, and yet, somehow, Senator McCain's associations keep coming up, as if they were somehow relevant. Which is it? Are you going to stop questioning Sen. McCain's associations, or are you going to start questioning Sen. Obama's associations?
Also of interest is being accused of being a literal simpleton when I merely abide by the normal rules of logic and debate. But, as I have noticed, debate is all but dead. People would rather attack anyone who puts out a halfway intelligent counter to their arguments or they simply dismiss any valid points and claim victory.
And so, I will remain amused by the fact that I at least made attempt to answer relevant questions posed to me while nearly everyone else gave a shrug, a cough, or completely tangential statements until someone was brave enough to give a simple answer to the original question posed. Sadly, even then, you were unable to do it without name-calling and ad hominems, but at least it's progress.

frank the machine said...

Wow!! The League of Nations...what would it take to get them to question this fool's candoofacy?

frank said...

Gee, Jim...Blivins answered it in the first response... then others addresses certain specifics ...including his lone fact...can you read? Or do you just like to make phony charges.

frankly said...

Of interest is that you don't find his associations troubling at all, and yet, somehow, Senator McCain's associations keep coming up, as if they were somehow relevant. Which is it? Are you going to stop questioning Sen. McCain's associations, or are you going to start questioning Sen. Obama's associations?

Haha...you're a peach, buddy. McKeating's ass ociates came up in response to Sayet's charges...I agree with most of what his pastor says...except for the AIDS thing...so, why should he bother me...most of the rest of it is exaggerated crap...do your own research. And as asked before, do you really think dems are going to vote for a riko siko like McCain just because O might not be pure?

bogus said...

On March 14, 2008, in an effort to comprehensively address the varous questions raised about Rezko, Obama spent about an hour and a half with the editorial boards and journalists of the two major Chicago newspapers, the Chicago Tribune[45] and the Chicago Sun Times,[46] agreeing to answer all their questions with no time limit. The previous owner of the Obama house also provided an email exchange confirming Obama's description of the purchase.[47] Both newspapers had endorsed Obama for the presidency earlier, and the Tribune specifically reaffirmed their support in an editorial.[48]

Anonymous said...

Wow!! The League of Nations...what would it take to get them to question this fool's candoofacy?

Well, Frank,these 25 percenters are still Bush supporters, don't believe in global warming, think al Qaida is bombing us for our freedoms, don't believe in evolution, so, there ya go.

Anonymous said...

What's to understand, Obama is the candidate representing the uber wealthly elite class who out of their guilt for having made easy money through capitalism want to atone for their their wealth by making everyone else miserably poor serfs under Collectivism.

Billionaire row, Hollywood, Moveon.org, Ivory Tower all the protected class ad Obama wants to keep it that way.

Obama isn't 'the man of the people' he's the overlord of the wealthy Collectivists.

Big Brother met Hollywood and they liked one another so much they created a monster they could adore.

berty said...

Obama's just another politically correct fad from the party that brought us 'no nukes' AND 'global warming' complaints in the same breath...

suze said...

What's to understand, Obama is the candidate representing the uber wealthly elite class

You mean like people who earned their success? People who used their minds and worked hard doing something that they like and are good at to achieve wealth? People like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates? Damn straight. There's nothing wrong with being a member of the elite in my book. I think it's cool.

suze said...

What's to understand, Obama is the candidate representing the uber wealthly elite class

And, in what category, pray tell, do you put GW. You know, the guy who has had a free pass all his life? Or John McCain who married his money, aka, the cunt?

Anonymous said...

"wealthy Collectivists

Oh, dats ketchy...NOT. I guess they finally realized using the word commie as a pejorative was getting threadbare ten years after everyone else did.

who'sthedumbbroad said...

Obama's just another politically correct fad from the party that brought us 'no nukes' AND 'global warming' complaints in the same breath...


No, she's not joking...she really doesn't get it.

nohatelikeXtianhate said...

CNN) -- Now that Sen. Barack Obama has denounced his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, many of his critics, especially those who call themselves conservative, are happy he has put the dashiki-wearing, American-criticizing former Marine in his place.

See, these same voices, many that are allegedly Christian, have reacted with glee by calling Wright a prophet of hate and a race baiter.

They hold themselves up to be so concerned about their fellow brother and sister, yet if you looked at their personal lives, I doubt you'd find many with African-American friends and associates (and I doubt their staffs are the most diverse in the world, but that's another story).

But be careful what you ask for.

Now that Wright has set the so-called standard for what isn't acceptable for religious leaders, let's see these same critics take their own kind to task for making absolutely outlandish comments.

Don't Miss
Martin: How Obama can get beyond Wright
Beck: Obama's odd timing on Wright
Jakes: Negative press distracting churches
Roland Martin archive
But don't stop there. Demand that candidates don't seek counsel from them. Demand that Republican candidates not go to their churches and sit in their pews and accept their contributions. And if elected, make sure those same candidates don't allow them access to the White House or halls of Congress. Turnabout is fair play, and that means guys like the Revs. Pat Robertson and John Hagee should not be sought out for their endorsements, and should be removed from any committees associated with a candidate or a political party.

Oh, I can't wait to get the e-mails from folks who will say, "Yeah, but Obama was a member of the church."

True, very true.

But if the marker is now saying anything unacceptable to the masses, then that should be the standard for any pastor: white, black, male, female, conservative or liberal. And any candidate, member or not.

Ask Roland Martin
Take part in an America Votes 2008 special presentation with Roland Martin on CNNRadio and CNN.com Live, Wednesday at noon ET. Send your questions to Roland by clicking here, or call us during the show at 877-266-4189. I've read many of the columns and listened to the shows of these so-called conservative patriots, and few, if any, have said a word about conservative white pastors who have called for the overthrow of the government for not following Christian values (the late Francis Schaeffer, a little "g" God on the Religious Right), or who have called for the destruction of the Islamic religion of a number of Americans (Pastor Rod Parsley) and folks worldwide.

Over the weekend, Bill Moyers of PBS; E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post; and Frank Rich of The New York Times have all spoken or written about this double standard that exists in America when it comes to who can speak and about what, and they -- all white men -- were focusing on the leeway white pastors are given.

OK, take race out. Take ideology out. If comments Wright made seven years ago are now a part of the standard, let's see these so-called American-loving conservatives use their radio and TV talk shows, columns and Internet platforms to hold their own accountable for their post-September 11 comments.

Trust me, I won't be holding my breath.

Why? Because conservative religious hate has been deemed a winner at the ballot box. In fact, the more you hate, the better chance you have of getting access to the White House for tea or to be feted by the usual assortment of conservative interest groups. What these conservative media elite do is say, "Oh, poor man. The liberals just don't like you."

For them, Wright's "hate" was a stench. Their "hate" comes up smelling like roses. But to every politician, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican: Beware. The die has been cast. The repeated denunciations of Wright will now lead each and every single one of you to have your pastors' oral and written words examined. If even one thing is said that can be construed as criticizing America or deemed hateful, then expect to see it on YouTube and replayed for millions to see. I suggest you go to your pastor now and say, "Please, watch what you say. I don't want to have to denounce you on national television."

To my media pals who are part of the conservative media elite, we'll be watching. And listening. Let's just see if you're as willing to tear apart one of your own.

Trust me, I won't be holding my breath.

Anonymous said...

"The overwhelming number of leftists are not atheists at all and most are members of various churches"

Yes, it's true leftists are religious however, why don't you ever admit that you worship Marx in the Church of Marxism.

For example, you preach from your pulpit that goodness means stealing from your neighbor because you feel entitlement to whatever they have.

And, you worship at Medea's alter by sucking out babies brains.

Further, you worship deception by making words meaningless in order to free you of an guilt you have in the pursuit of momentary pleasure.

In other words Leftists are gutless, heartless, souless, mindless leeches who worship only their ego-centric narcissism.


Plus you're Apes.

(Now this should rile the monkeys)

John said...

Anon said:

"Plus you're Apes.

(Now this should rile the monkeys)."


Anon (and Mr. Sayet), you might find this old post of mine revealing on that note:

http://arlingtonian.blogspot.com/2006/02/banned-from-liberal-avenger_26.html

lana banana said...

And, you worship at Medea's alter by sucking out babies brains.


Okay, you got us on that one, but some of that other stuff you claim about us is just soooo wrong! You're really funny, though. Oh, that's altar, btw...if you want to sound sophisticated...well, little clues like that make you look like...you know, just such a dopey, little poseur. mmmm...though...baby brains!

Anonymous said...

John, I can't believe you waste your precious time here with these ugly creeps. the ANON you're talking with is the only one with any decency or brains here other than minichist and Evan.
I have never seen uglier posts on any conservative site, and that's going some, since most of the conservative sites at least welcome dissent; try to post a conservative thought at KOS or moveon or DU! no go. That's the GREAT LIBERAL MIND AT WORK. Apes, is right.
Well..keep throwing these thugs a bone, John... heh

Jim said...

"Haha...you're a peach, buddy. McKeating's ass ociates came up in response to Sayet's charges...I agree with most of what his pastor says...except for the AIDS thing...so, why should he bother me...most of the rest of it is exaggerated crap...do your own research. And as asked before, do you really think dems are going to vote for a riko siko like McCain just because O might not be pure?
"

Hu-uh.
First of all, who is McKeating and why is he in this discussion? (Yes, that's rhetorical.)
Secondly, what part of "redirection" and its irrelevance to debate are you not comprehending? The original question had zero to do with Senator McCain. And yet, you keep pulling him into it as if you were somehow obsessed. Sen. McCain is *irrelevant* to the original question posed.
As for doing my own research, I have. Nice deflect attempt, though.
As to your final question, my answer is "it is irrelevant to Sayet's original question and I really do not care if dems vote for Sen. McCain."

And to Iana Banana:

It is an extraordinarily weak position that can only defend itself by attacking someone else's grammar and spelling. That is called an ad hominem attack, which is usually used because the person has no real defense against the underlying points.

It is times like these I really wish debate/logic was a required class in high school and college.

ytba said...

O'Bomber's advisers are a whose who of failures dredged up from political graveyards past. His activist supporters span the spectrum from fools to criminals to Leftist fascists to Islamic terrorists. His financial backers include very many who are either corrupt or highly suspect.

Oh, and did I mention, he's a Demokrat?!

Nuf said!

(And yes I have plenty to back that up, but I don't want to waste my time because (1)-Conservatives already know it's true, and (2)-Lefties wouldn't listen anyway, preferring their unsubstantiated paranoid drivel to facts.)

But, lest it be said that I have nothing...

(1) The man himself is two-faced, saying different things to different audiences, i.e., he's lying to one (or both) of them.

(2) Paleostinians support him

(3) Hamas terrorists support him

And let's not forget Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Father Flegger, Edward Said, etc., etc., etc.

Not only is everything he knows wrong, but everyone he knows is, as well.

ytba said...

Oh, I also meant to include this one, where you can hear numerous Hamas terrorist spokes-ghouls gush over how wonderful O'Bomber would be ...for the spread of evil on the planet.

But, the Lefty says, O'Bomber is a candidate for "hope" and "change." And I would agree, except that the "hope" is for those who hate me and want me dead, and the "change" is the kind that was tried already in Fascist Italy, in Nazi Germany, in Stalinist Russia, and in Castro's Cuba, and which failed and/or is failing miserable wherever citizens suffer under it's demonic restrictions.