Obama supporters. I have one question

[reefraff]

Continued
The False Veneer
Obama has been clever to appear bipartisan and moderate, despite a very liberal voting record. He let his guard down in a big way when he not only endorsed but sponsored the Global Poverty Act, funneling a massive amount of foreign aid (by one informed estimate $845 billion) to Africa and the rest of the world, perhaps as partial reparations for slavery. It is curious that Obama doesn’t talk about this bill, which is on the verge of Senate passage, and it is strange that the major media don’t mention it, either. It is a potential budget buster that sheds light on Obama’s worldview.
The “exchange” of views with Ayers and others of his ilk may also shed light on what Obama might do in other areas, such as the critical field of education, where the federal government has assumed a larger role. It turns out that Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, another former communist terrorist, are now specializing in the education and the raising of young people. They even have a book coming out on the subject.
Obama himself seems to have some strange ideas on child-rearing, having brought his young children to hear Sunday sermons from a pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who has exhibited anti-American and anti-white tendencies and sentiments.

 

[reefraff]

continued
The Foreign Connection
For his part, Ayers wasn’t just a terrorist; he was a communist terrorist aligned with and manipulated by Moscow’s communist apparatus, operating through Cuba, against the United States. Many members of the group traveled to Cuba, sometimes to meet with the Vietnamese communists, and others went directly to Hanoi, North Vietnam. One of their stated objectives was to prevent the U.S. from stopping a communist takeover of Vietnam. They succeeded, with the acquiescence of a liberal Congress, which cut off U.S. aid to the South Vietnamese government, and more than 58,000 American soldiers died in vain.
Senator John McCain was an American prisoner of war being tortured by the North Vietnamese communists while Ayers and his comrades were giving aid and comfort to McCain’s torturers.
The FBI was desperate to apprehend Ayers and his comrades because they were operating with foreign support and direction and the dozens of bombings they carried out between 1969 and 1975 did an estimated $100 million in damage. A policeman had been killed in San Francisco by a bomb planted by the Weather Underground at a police station. Seven others were injured. Eight were injured in the Weather Underground bombing of the New York City police department. Fifty-nine policemen were injured in a riot the Weather Underground promoted in Chicago.
If anything, ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos was too timid in his questioning of Obama during the April 16 debate. Here’s how Stephanopoulos put it:
A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times, saying, ‘I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.’ An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you were ‘friendly.’ Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?”
A “gentleman” named Bill Ayers? The only reason he’s not in prison today is because the FBI employed allegedly illegal break-ins as part of their search for members of the group. FBI officials thought the break-ins were justified on national security grounds but terrorist lawyers would have had any charges against them thrown out.
Some of the terrorists, of course, did go to prison. Kathy Boudin went to prison for her involvement in an October 20, 1981, armed terrorist assault that left Nyack, New York Police Sgt. Edward O’Grady, Patrolman Waverly Brown and Brinks guard Peter Paige dead. A website, memorial and scholarship have been created in their honor.
David Gilbert also went to prison for his role in that assault. He co-authored the SDS booklet, “U.S. Imperialism,” whose first page includes a quote from the Communist Manifesto. He wrote the book, No Surrender: Writings from an anti-imperialist political prisoner, which includes an endorsement on the back cover from Ward Churchill, the disgraced college professor who achieved notoriety for comparing 9/11 victims to Nazis.
Other titles from the “SDS lit list” of June of 1969 included, Which Side Are You On? US History in Perspective, Cuba vs U.S Imperialism, and Cultural Revolution in China. SDS literature regularly referred to police as “pigs.”
Hillary Clinton, during the debate in which the subject of Ayers came up, meekly noted that Obama “served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.” Notice how Senator Clinton referred to “Mr. Ayers,” after Stephanopoulos had called him a “gentleman.”
In rebuttal, Obama noted that “President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act than me serving on a board with somebody for actions that he did 40 years ago.”
So both of them have something to answer for. And so does George Soros.

 

[reefraff]

Continued
The Soros Connection
One of the terrorists pardoned by Clinton was Linda Evans, who became a “Soros Justice Fellow,” named after the controversial left-wing billionaire, George Soros, who spent millions of dollars to defeat President Bush in 2004. She was given a Soros grant to “increase civic participation of former prisoners.”
This is the same Linda Evans, according to an FBI report, who said that during a trip to Hanoi in 1969 she was shown an anti-aircraft gun, cradled it in her arms, and “wished an American plane would fly over.”
For her part, Dohrn in 2004 was advertised as a featured speaker at the Baltimore branch of the Open Society Institute, a group funded by Soros. Her topic was discipline in schools.
You can see what they have in mind for America’s youth in how Chesa Boudin turned out. He was raised by Dohrn and Ayers because his real parents, Weather Underground members Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, had gone to prison. Chesa Boudin, who went to Yale, where he was a leader of the Yale Coalition for Peace, was selected as a Rhodes Scholar and is a big fan of “The Venezuelan Revolution,” which just happens to be in the title of a book that he co-authored that is sympathetic to the brand of communism being promoted by Hugo Chavez. He reportedly lived in Venezuela so he could support the Chavez government. “To our fathers and mothers, who brought politics to our lives,” says the acknowledgements. They sure did.
Chesa Boudin is also an editor of “Letters From Young Activists,” a 2005 book about a new “movement” for “progressive social change” that includes a preface from Bernardine Dohrn, who praises the “young militants” for trying to change the world. The book includes an endorsement from convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal and gives thanks to “lifelong activist and educator Bill Ayers.”
“Dear Dad,” writes Chesa Boudin in a letter published in the book. He tells his father, convicted and incarcerated terrorist David Gilbert, that “Che Guevara would have described your revolutionary spirit as guided by love.”
It turns out that Bill Ayers’ brother, Rick, who accused Hillary of McCarthyism, is also an “educator.” He was a teacher at Berkeley High School, where he developed a program that sent students to foreign countries like Cuba and Mexico to learn about “social justice.” The author of a book about teenage slang, he has teamed up with his brother and Bernardine Dohrn to edit the forthcoming book, Zero Tolerance, advertised as an argument against using tough discipline in schools.
Apparently, school officials are just supposed to let student troublemakers have the run of the place, like the SDS tried to do on college campuses.

 

[reefraff]

And more
The Obama Youth Movement
An objective observer might conclude that Ayers, Dohrn and their comrades are now dedicated to creating a new student and youth movement, like the one they participated in which eventually developed into a full-blown terrorist organization that killed our fellow citizens and tried to eliminate the “Thin Blue Line” of police separating us from the criminals.
In this new crusade, they not only have an inspiring leader, Barack Obama, who attracts young people with his promise of “change,” but a moneybags named Soros, who has funded causes such as rights for convicted felons and legalization of dope.
“I have very high regard for Hillary Clinton, but I think Obama has the charisma and the vision to radically reorient America in the world,” Soros recently told Judy Woodruff of Bloomberg Television. “I think that he has shown to be a really unusual person.”
On April 8, according to Politico’s Ben Smith, Soros hosted a dinner that spawned a new group, Progressive Media USA, which plans on spending $40 million to defeat McCain’s presidential bid and ensure the election of the Democratic candidate, which Soros hopes will be Obama.
After Hillary’s attack over Ayers backfired and led to charges of McCarthyism, Senator John McCain brought it up, noting on ABC’s “This Week” program that Ayers was an “unrepentant terrorist.” At the same time, McCain said he would not question Obama’s patriotism.
But the patriotism of Frank Marshall Davis can certainly be questioned. And Obama should be asked why he referred to this pro-Soviet communist in his book only as “Frank

 

[gonefishcrazy]

KOOLAID??? OMG............. This is the second time I have seen this word on this thread when speaking about Obama. You guys keep getting more and more closer to your point. I don't think you people realize he does have a white maternal mother. I wonder if he had his mother's skin tone and hair would people still feel he was racists and everything else.
To everybody who's behind and believe Obama is the right choice, let the people who can't see past his skin color talk to themselves. If we don't respond to them then eventually they'll get tired of talking to each other. Maybe we should start another thread for only Obama supporters.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2580092
That's a moderately ironic post. You say all I do is spout fear, then you say if McCain is President he'll start WW3 with Iran.

So it's ok for you to "spout" outragous remarks but I can't talk about current events and historical failures of negotiating with terrorists and dictators?
Try reading some other sources then. The population of Iraq is what, 26 million and you're sources say over 1 million have been killed by US soliders?
The GOP wants to give people who lived under a dictator, who was responsible for horrific autrocities, freedom. You're side wants to abandon them. Who cares more?
Wasn't it McCain who said bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran? It's because of the current administration that we are in this terrible miss in Iraq. I think many people would agree that Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists prior to the war and because of our involvement there, the whole place has gone to hell.
I have no idea the answer to this question but since you seem to have an answer for everything answer this. How many Iraqis died horrorific deaths while Sadam was in control and how many have died violent deaths since we've occupied the country? The further the hyprocracy, our current administion seems to have no issues working the the China and their oppressive Communist government. Clearly our government is far from being altruistic and does what's best for big biz and their true constituents, the rich. Many people feel that Obama is different and will fight for us, not big biz and special interest groups.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by fishfreak1242
http:///forum/post/2580174
This doesnt have anything to do with this thread, but man this is one REALLYYYYYY long thread.
And sadly we're arguing basically the same points as on page 1.
It basically comes down to:
Socialism vs Democracy
Isolationsim vs Interventionalism
Government control (Socialism x2) vs Free Enterprise
Government safety net vs Individual responsibility
"Hopeful" vs "Realistic"

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by gonefishcrazy
http:///forum/post/2580242
KOOLAID??? OMG............. This is the second time I have seen this word on this thread when speaking about Obama. You guys keep getting more and more closer to your point. I don't think you people realize he does have a white maternal mother. I wonder if he had his mother's skin tone and hair would people still feel he was racists and everything else.
To everybody who's behind and believe Obama is the right choice, let the people who can't see past his skin color talk to themselves. If we don't respond to them then eventually they'll get tired of talking to each other. Maybe we should start another thread for only Obama supporters.

Koolaid has nothing to do with race. Ironically it's Obama supporters that keep trying to tie everything into racial components.

I don't care if Obama is purple.
It has to do with obama supporters saying things like "Obama will lower gasoline prices" and "Obama will unite people" and "Obama will bring peace to the world" and "Obama promises to give my kids ponies..."

 

[crashbandicoot]

He's giving out ponies ? I am so on board now . I always wanted a pony , and with his "promises" to lower gas prices I will be needing a pony to ride to work .
As for the Kool-aid comment I really don't even begin to understand how that could be a racist comment but ok ?I think it more reffers to the whole cult thing and following blindly to your own death by drinking the kool-aid ?

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by gonefishcrazy
http:///forum/post/2580242
KOOLAID??? OMG............. This is the second time I have seen this word on this thread when speaking about Obama. You guys keep getting more and more closer to your point. I don't think you people realize he does have a white maternal mother. I wonder if he had his mother's skin tone and hair would people still feel he was racists and everything else.
To everybody who's behind and believe Obama is the right choice, let the people who can't see past his skin color talk to themselves. If we don't respond to them then eventually they'll get tired of talking to each other. Maybe we should start another thread for only Obama supporters.

Koolaid-the act of Jim Jones to poison his followers. They so fully believed in him that they drank koolaid to commit mass suicide.
Just wondering how you derive a connection between koolaid and skin color??

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2580258
Koolaid has nothing to do with race. Ironically it's Obama supporters that keep trying to tie everything into racial components.

I don't care if Obama is purple.
It has to do with obama supporters saying things like "Obama will lower gasoline prices" and "Obama will unite people" and "Obama will bring peace to the world" and "Obama promises to give my kids ponies..."
So, what's McCain gonna give us besides more of the same? Ah, maybe war with Iran, more death in Iraq, more insurgents and terrorists world wide and maybe he'll go off the handle and beat an aid or insult his wife in front of the country (anyone ever see the bit where he called his wife a trollop and the C word in front of a group of reporters)?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2580252
Wasn't it McCain who said bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran? It's because of the current administration that we are in this terrible miss in Iraq. I think many people would agree that Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists prior to the war and because of our involvement there, the whole place has gone to hell.
I have no idea the answer to this question but since you seem to have an answer for everything answer this. How many Iraqis died horrorific deaths while Sadam was in control and how many have died violent deaths since we've occupied the country?
McCain did say bomb Iran. Of course, so did Obama: "Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us." Chicago Sun Times
So now are you scared Obama will get us into WW3?
Iraq was a haven for terrorists before we invaded. We've repeatedly shown links to both Hezbollah and Hamas in Iraq. Saddam supported international terrorism. The fact that Al Qaeda is now there is a bonus as far as I'm concerned. At least they are concentrated in one place versus spread out in significant numbers across 6 continents.
We know Saddam is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. It is likely, however, that no one will ever know the exact number. Our Government says approximately 300,000. HRW says 500,000. Iraqi politicians say over a million.
So let's go with 300,000. Do you believe our military is responsible for anywhere near 300,000 civilian deaths?

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2580276
McCain did say bomb Iran. Of course, so did Obama: "Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us." Chicago Sun Times
So now are you scared Obama will get us into WW3?
Iraq was a haven for terrorists before we invaded. We've repeatedly shown links to both Hezbollah and Hamas in Iraq. Saddam supported international terrorism. The fact that Al Qaeda is now there is a bonus as far as I'm concerned. At least they are concentrated in one place versus spread out in significant numbers across 6 continents.
We know Saddam is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. It is likely, however, that no one will ever know the exact number. Our Government says approximately 300,000. HRW says 500,000. Iraqi politicians say over a million. Didn't Tommy Franks say something to the effect we don't do body counts in regards to civilians? To me that seems very callous and leads me to believe the lives of innocent Iraqi citizens are worth less then those of our troups. I have read that anywhere from 650k to 1.2 million people have died in Iraq since the invasion and those deaths are a result of the invasion.
So let's go with 300,000. Do you believe our military is responsible for anywhere near 300,000 civilian deaths?
That's apples to oranges and you know it, I don't know why you'd ever bother wasting your time to post that? He never joked about bombing and killing people, I'd wager that Obama takes the possible use of military force seriously and doesn't joke around about it.
I think our military and the actions of our military are responsible for over 500k or more civilian deaths in Iraq. I doubt Sadam in all his years was responsible for more.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2580273
So, what's McCain gonna give us besides more of the same? Ah, maybe war with Iran, more death in Iraq, more insurgents and terrorists world wide and maybe he'll go off the handle and beat an aid or insult his wife in front of the country?
There it is again... Despite Al Qaeda's own leaders saying to the contrary, you Obama supporters still tow the line that there are more terrorists today.
Good thing we are killing so many of them. They would probably have a larger army than the Chinese at the rate you all seem to think they proliferate otherwise.
Based on Obama's words, he may give us a war with Iran. Based on his religious beliefs, he may well get us involved in the African civil wars. (After all, his first loyalty is to the non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA). Based on his words he will destroy the health care system, raise our taxes (Doubling capital gains tax for instance), and maybe abandon Israel to partner with Hamas.
Maybe Obama will appoint domestic terrorists like members of the Weather Underground to run key DHS positions. Maybe Obama will push to pass laws to punish the "typical white person".
We can both play the "maybe" game.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2580284
...I think our military and the actions of our military are responsible for over 500k or more civilian deaths in Iraq. I doubt Sadam in all his years was responsible for more.
Enough said. Based on that absurdity I will no longer bother to respond to a single post of yours.
That you believe our men/women in unifrom are capable of killing half a million civilians is staggering.
At least you came out and said it.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2580290
Enough said. Based on that absurdity I will no longer bother to respond to a single post of yours.
That you believe our men/women in unifrom are capable of killing half a million civilians is staggering.
At least you came out and said it.
Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000
By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; Page A12
A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.
The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.
or
BAGHDAD: While the number of US troops killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion stands at 4,000, up to three times as many Iraqi soldiers have died - and the number of civilians killed runs into tens and probably hundreds of thousands. The icasualties.org Web site, based only on published reports, shows that around 8,000 members of the Iraqi security forces have died since the March 2003 invasion. Last year, however, the Iraqi government put the figure at 12,000.
There is no agreement when it comes to civilian casualties, particularly as many deaths are never reported in the media.
In January, a joint UN World Health Organization and the Iraqi government study concluded that between 104,000 and 223,000 Iraqis had died violently since the invasion.
As of March 24, the independent Iraq Body Count Web site, based solely on incidents reported by the media, suggested close to 90,000 deaths, of which over a quarter died in 2007.
At the high end of the scale, British polling institute Opinion Research Business in a report published on January 30 estimated the total number of civilian deaths at between 946,000 and 1.12 million.
The Lancet, a respected British medical review, quoted a statistical survey which found that as of July 2006 some 655,000 more civilians had died than would have been the case if there had been no war.
You can believe what ever you like.

 

[jmick]

Published by The Lancet, a venerable British medical journal, the study [PDF] used previously accepted methods for calculating death rates to estimate the number of "excess" Iraqi deaths after the 2003 invasion at 426,369 to 793,663; the study said the most likely figure was near the middle of that range: 654,965. Almost 92 percent of the dead, the study asserted, were killed by bullets, bombs, or U.S. air strikes. This stunning toll was more than 10 times the number of deaths estimated by the Iraqi or U.S. governments, or by any human-rights group.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jmickhttp:///forum/post/2580292
Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; Page A12
A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.
The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.
or
BAGHDAD: While the number of US troops killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion stands at 4,000, up to three times as many Iraqi soldiers have died - and the number of civilians killed runs into tens and probably hundreds of thousands. The icasualties.org Web site, based only on published reports, shows that around 8,000 members of the Iraqi security forces have died since the March 2003 invasion. Last year, however, the Iraqi government put the figure at 12,000.
There is no agreement when it comes to civilian casualties, particularly as many deaths are never reported in the media.
In January, a joint UN World Health Organization and the Iraqi government study concluded that between 104,000 and 223,000 Iraqis had died violently since the invasion.
As of March 24, the independent Iraq Body Count Web site, based solely on incidents reported by the media, suggested close to 90,000 deaths, of which over a quarter died in 2007.
At the high end of the scale, British polling institute Opinion Research Business in a report published on January 30 estimated the total number of civilian deaths at between 946,000 and 1.12 million.
The Lancet, a respected British medical review, quoted a statistical survey which found that as of July 2006 some 655,000 more civilians had died than would have been the case if there had been no war.
You can believe what ever you like.

Originally Posted by Jmick
I think our military and the actions of our military are responsible for over 500k or more civilian deaths in Iraq. ....
Jmick, like many others, seems unwilling to draw any destinction between civilians killed by US soldiers and those deliberately targetted by terrorists and radical Shiites funded by and trained in Iran.

That's the problem with this whole debate. There is a moral relativism that has infected our Nation's way of thinking.
Can you imagine a newpaper in 1944 publishing the a report saying something like "The unneccessary War in Europe is responsible for the deaths of 20 million civilians..."

 

[crashbandicoot]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2580316
Published by The Lancet, a venerable British medical journal, the study [PDF] used previously accepted methods for calculating death rates to estimate the number of "excess" Iraqi deaths after the 2003 invasion at 426,369 to 793,663; the study said the most likely figure was near the middle of that range: 654,965. Almost 92 percent of the dead, the study asserted, were killed by bullets, bombs, or U.S. air strikes. This stunning toll was more than 10 times the number of deaths estimated by the Iraqi or U.S. governments, or by any human-rights group.

So basicaly your ignoring every other source in favor of this one because this number is much higher and is better suited as a tool for your means ? U.S goverment can't, count iraqi goverment can't count, Various human rights groups can't count , Here we go The Lancet they can count at least the way the left wing does . I don't know who tought that algebra class but I am glad I skipped it .
Shouldn't a medical journal be less biased then to state " U.S air strikes" . Their job is the medical field not the forezics of tactical air strikes . This just points to the artical being skewed in my opinion .

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by Crashbandicoot
http:///forum/post/2580329
So basicaly your ignoring every other source in favor of this one because this number is much higher and is better suited as a tool for your means ?
Shouldn't a medical journal be less biased then to state " U.S air strikes" . Their job is the medical field not the forezics of tactical air strikes . This just points to the artical being skewed in my opinion .
I think the real toll is somewhere in the middle.