Barack Obama is afraid of himself
Update: Obama now says he wasn’t race-baiting with his dollar bill comments. Horse-hockey!
***
How moronic is Barack Obama’s latest, bogus whine about Republicans emphasizing his funny name and how “different” he looks from other American presidents to gin up fear?
Well, look who’s afraid of himself. This comes not from the GOP. Not from conservative talk radio. Not from John McCain, who has been too busy calling members of his own party racist for challenging the Obamessiah.
No, this comes from the Senate website of…Barack Obama:
I remember when I first ran for the state Senate – my very first race. A seat had opened up, and some friends asked me if I’d be interested in running. Well, I thought about it, and then I did what every wise man does when faced with a difficult decision: I prayed, and I asked my wife.
And after consulting with these higher powers, I threw my hat in the ring and I did what every person on a campaign does – I talked to anyone who’d listen.
I went to bake sales and barber shops and if there were two guys standing on the corner I’d pull up and hand them literature. And everywhere I went I’d get two questions:
First, they’d ask, “Where’d you get that funny name, Barack Obama?” Because people just couldn’t pronounce it. They’d call me “Alabama,” or they’d call me “Yo Mama.” And I’d have to explain that I got the name from my father, who was from Kenya.
As for how “different” Obama looks, here is another “attack” on his looks. Not from the GOP. Not from conservative talk radio. Not from John McCain.
It’s from Barack Obama in Berlin last week, via LGF:
“I know that I don’t look like the other Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city.”
Self-fear-mongerer Barack Obama: Afraid of himself.
Stop the hate! End the fear!
It’s the pot calling the kettle black.
Oh, wait. That’s racist.
***
Reviews of Obama’s latest victim card stunt…
Jake Tapper: “Pretty inflammatory.”
Yeah, and defamatory.
Allahpundit: Defibrillating a desperate narrative.
Peter Kirsanow: “If the GOP really wanted to scare voters they would simply threaten to replay all of Sen. Obama’s insufferable statements, accumulating rapidly by the hour.”
Instapundit: Gaffe-o-matic!
Flashback: Ed Morrissey called out Obama’s race card strategy last month.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Obama: 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder, « Riggword Weblog
- Barack Obama is afraid of himself « Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian
- BigMouthFrog
- Hardball Panel Agrees: Obama Is Playing The Race Card Against McCain : BigMouthFrog
- Obama’s Race Card Follies! « Nice Deb
- Obama Helps Right Wing Nuts, Shoots Self in Foot | The Hinge Of Fate
- Rational, Sane, Non-Super-Liberal-Leftist-Socialist People Oppose Obama Because They Are Racists « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Michelle Malkin » Who compared Obama to Paris Hilton first?
- McCain Gets America: « Riggword Weblog
- Paris Obama?? | Pirates! Man Your Women!
- Why Did McCain Come Down Hard On Race Card? Simple, Axelrod Is Famous For It. « Texas Hill Country
- Obama Goes Into Hiding: « Riggword Weblog
- Welcome aboard the Straight Talk Express - Mrs. Clinton | BitsBlog
- Bookworm Room » To a hammer, everything is a nail (or, let’s talk racism)
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama
Sister Toldjah
» The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – and how the far left still hasn’t given upNewsBusters.org
» Politico: Conservatives Ousted Scozzafava Because She's A WomanWeekly Standard
» Ben Nelson Demands Stupak Language in Senate BillWeekly Standard
» Lieberman to Obama in May: Homegrown Islamist Terrorist Determined to Strike in U.S.AmSpecBlog
» Carly Fiorina's Twitter OpponentPundit & Pundette
» Intelligence agencies knew Hasan was a traitor
What are you insinuating? Or do you just have an axe to grind with me?
My bad, let me clear that up!
He is saying his approach is to teach them empathy.
Lgm contritely opined:
Again, you’re the king of assumptions. No one is pretending that foul language isn’t used on either side. You’re projecting and I just don’t get it. What is the point? Let’s go one step further with all the times you’ve redirected a topic without any attempt at serious “participation.”
It’s very hard to “dismiss” (had to laugh at that absurd comment) liberals when they’re all over the place saying how Republicans and those who criticize their messiah are “racist.” What bothers many contributors on this blog is that you can’t defend your positions without morally equivilating or inserting TPM into the conversation. If that is the height of your political discourse, you’ll find nobody cheering you on (except the regular group of Obummer groupies).
Do you have a thin skin or what?
Obama is afraid of himself?
I am afraid of him too!
Wrong again. We should hunt down terrorists. We should also try to address social/political/economic conditions that breed terrorism so that we have less terrorists to hunt down in the future.
I think a fundamental difference is that many here think that the Islamic religion in and of itself is the breeder of terrorism rather than political/economic conditions. That is a fair debate to have. But lets start from a point of being truthful about the other’s position.
TOS charmingly opined:
TOS:
I’m not insinuating anything. I’m profiling the tactics that you and lgm tend to use of linking your leftie blogs (foul mouthed ad hominem Michelle bash fest you must be so proud) to a conversation without actually proof that isn’t “tinged” with analysis or context.
Usually, I don’t directly speak to you. However, I’ve noticed that you let blog links do your talking for you. You also have no problem with the moral equivalency argument. If you have something more to add that’s more original (or meaningful) let us know.
So Chap, we hunt them down and address the social/political/economic conditions, and then teach them empathy.
Your post has refuted your earlier point.
This is another reason why I dread an Obama Presidency. Besides the naivete, the incompetence, the hubris, the delusions, the immaturity, etc… We will have race issues in our face 24/7. Every criticism will be labelled as “racist”. His administration will cry “racism!” every time they are thwarted.
It’s getting tiresome now, but just wait if he is elected. It’ll be far worse.
On July 31st, 2008 at 12:14 pm, chapoutier said:
1. Why not change it? Why continue to complain that he is misperceived by non-urban voters (the bitter folks) as something he asserts he isn’t, if he’s unwilling to change the most obvious point of contention? He should change it or stop sniveling.
2. The curses against America (I don’t swear) and the “blame whitey” sermons. He to have been complacent during these sermons because it wasn’t his religion. He had no vested interest in what was being said, nor did he care.
3. And I refer you to the little old lady from Charleston, WV, who said on ABC News, and I paraphrase, “He[Obama] can deny it all it he wants, but I still believe he is Muslim.”
Nutz! He to… = He appears to…
True. The Koran has over *120* instances of where it states to kill infidels. If you want to be truthful about their position, that would be your starting point.
The mentality of these people doesn’t come from their economical situations. Bin Laden was a millionaire many times over, and yet he engages in terrorist activities. There are people over there that are the richest in the world, and yet terrorism thrives in these places.
I do disgree though (generally) is with us having to help everyone else with their problems. Their government and their societies have created those problems. While we can lead by example, i’m not willing to dump resources into try to (again, by and large) change a mentality in place for all these centuries.
My solution? Dead terrorists reduce their numbers. Means there are less to hunt down later either.
my 2 cents.
Please take a more thorough look at the links that I have posted in the past , with the exception of the C & L link regarding atheling, the links I provide are factual. Serious question emjem24, do you ever partake in any non-rightwing blogs or media?
On July 31st, 2008 at 1:01 pm, purplepeep said:
Now that’s funny…
And that is really sad and shows willful ignorance. I don’t think he should center his campaign around pandering to that lowest common denominator. Same reason he should not change his name.
I understand what he is talking about. Do you concur with him that those are symptoms of terrorism?
After 9/11 – I really didn’t need to hear a speech about what terrorists lack. Who gives a flying hoot what they lack? Sounds so namby pamby… and that scares the dickens out of me. We need to understand them is essentially what he said… scary stuff.
AJ:
Sox get Griffey. BOOM – I smell pennant. Maybe even the whole enchilada.
Hey, I wouldn’t mind if more people thought Barack Hussein was a muslim.
I don’t know if he is or isn’t an American hating muslim…well, I guess I do know that he and his angry fist-bumping shrew of a wife hate America, but I don’t know if he is muslim.
If people don’t want to vote for him because they THINK he is a muslim terrorist, fine with me. As long as he doesn’t win…
The terrorist with whom we are dealing are Islamic. It’s not because of their social or economic issues. I might concede it some of can be contribued to political issues, because their religion is so intertwined with their politics in many cases.
Their religion is not one of peace. They practice Jihad. They Koran tells them to kill infidels. They’re looking for their 72 virgins by trying to send some of us to meet our maker.
I like the “celeb” line of attack, the Paris-Britney-Obama mental linkage in the McCain ad. It resonates with people, especially with Obama becoming increasingly good fodder for parody. Though when a guy says he’s “the One the world has been waiting for” that’s gotta be the very definition of self-parody.
So, what, Michelle Obama is now a deity?
Be afraid…be very afraid….
Here is why he’s afraid of himself…
‘Wild Bill’ Obama
and now he tries to claim descent from a legendary American figure, Wild Bill Hickock, associated with that most American of archetypes- the cowboy.
The Old Testament contains several calls for the same (not as many), but that does not make the Jewish people necessarily terrorist-prone. I am not saying that the fundamentals of the Islamic religion is blameless, but is that alone enough to explain it? It seems to me terrorism pops up relatively frequently in poor, undeveloped, uneducated, unrepresented areas that have nothing to do with Islam.
Two issues: First, killing all those terrorist certainly is not cheap, by any stretch of the imagination. So we are putting resources into something one way or the other. Second, We take a risk of radicalizing more people against us when we go into countries to kill their countrymen. Certainly there are plenty of people that feel we have created MORE terrorists from our invasion of Iraq than we have killed over there.
First, how much does a nuclear bomb cost?
Second, if they are dead I don’t give a fig what they think about us.
Funny, I don’t remember the 9/11 attackers as being poor, undeveloped, uneducated, or unrepresented. I wouldn’t necessarily classify Bin Laden as poor or uneducated either. Arafat was a billionaire. Yes, the poor and uneducated can often be driven like sheep to commit terrorist acts, but the people driving them, the true terrorist leaders, are almost always advantaged and wealthy or religious leaders (also advantaged and wealthy BTW) driven by calculated evil or religious dementia.
I guess my point was more of the fact that you don’t see Jews in the streets dragging the corpses of Muslims behind them, or actively engaging in terrorism. They don’t behead their captives, don’t preach hate in their town squares and actively praise and condone those who do…its a standpoint that while a 2000 year old text contains references for such things, you just dont see it being done actively. In this case, radical muslims ARE, however, engaging in that behavior. They practice a barbaric religion, founded by a (shocka!) barbarian, marauder, and murderer.
As far as the second. Killing terrorist isnt cheap, but…money well spent, and certainly more effective than pumping that cash into those areas to help their poor.
The second point is iffy…if you look at active enforcement in Iraq, for example, death tolls there are the lowest they’ve been since we got there…the evidence that more of them are being radicalized in that case doesn’t hold up as much. In other places, i could grant the possibility, but again…active enforcement is a key.
Time to throw yourself under the bus, Barack.
“True. The Koran has over *120* instances of where it states to kill infidels. If you want to be truthful about their position, that would be your starting point.”
Rusty, is that you? If it ain’t, before getting yourself completely bogged down in Swamp Relativism, you need to consider a simple fact.
You’ll certainly find in ancient history a few instances in the OT where the Israelites where commanded to defeat and kill an enemy tribe. Done and over with going back at least 2000-3000 years ago.
On the other hand we have Islam, which calls for the ongoing murder of innocents. It’s open ended.
Work with that for awhile and you’ll get the idea. But here’s a hint – Think; apples, oranges.
I can name several. IRA in Northern Ireland. ETA in Basque region in Spain. Ku Klux Klan in the US. Army for the Liberation of Rwanda.
Don’t quite follow you on this one.
Odumba (actually both these guys) is (are) really proving the old adage:
Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re intelligent than to open it and remove all doubt.
First, they are poor, undeveloped, uneducated? and they compare with Al queda, hamas, fatah, hexballah?
How much did 9/11 cost. Buildings, airplanes, airlines, ect. You know, how much $$$.
I do not want to get into a OT vs. Koran quoting contest. There are plenty of passages that call for the killing on non-Jews. My point is that obviously that is not what Jewish people practice anymore. But the violent tenants are still there. So then the question becomes, why is one group radicalized and the other is not?
Because one group actively uses their text to promote murdering people and follow through with it and the other does not?
Doesn’t seem terribly difficult to distinguish the apple from the orange here. Or is it just Chap?
Sox need to beef up their injured roster, eh?
That’s not a “pennant” you smell – it’s linament!
And/or underrepresented. And yes. All of the groups I cited above flourish(ed) because of one or more of those aspects.
I am sure billions if not into a trillion. I am just not sure where you are going with that argument.
You basically just answered “one group is radicalized because one group is radicalized.”
Or maybe you misinterpreted me. I wasn’t saying why is one group called radical while the other is not. For the sake of argument I will admit that followers of Judaeism are not “radical” in the sense of becoming terrorists and followers of Islam often are.
My only point is that I don’t think the fact that they are Islamic is the whole answer. Correlation is not causation.
What a wonderful comment about your wife. I think it needs to go into an email to my hubby.
terrig,
Welcome back. Been a long time since I’ve seen you post.
chap, you missed the point. The OT references to killing “unbelievers” are to specific instances in the history of the nation Israel (you know, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their story – in their time). The Koran doesn’t have this context. The command to kill infidels is an integral part of the teaching – something that doesn’t convey the historic aspects, rather it is intended to apply to all adherents of Islam for all time.
Not so for the OT. Please don’t try to use a moral equivilance argument here.
Hi Chap,
My daughter has been having chemo and someone said something nasty regarding her being ill. I couldn’t stomach being here and for the record it was one who calls himself a “conservative”.
thanks,
terri
I have a feeling that information doesn’t quite penetrate for him because most people don’t take context into consideration because they are too busy trying to make a political point of moral equivalence. But thanks for articulating that way better than I can
You are the one who brought it up, Mr. Pharisee-Lawyer. Own up to it. You are in over your head and your ignorance of religion is showing. You fail to comprehend CONTEXT in the OT.
Islam is a violent religion. From its unfortunate inception in the 7th century, we have seen nothing but violence and oppression as its fruits. Here’s some instruction from some men who are far more learned on the topic (or on any other I would say) than you are:
And,
Maybe you should brush up on history, the Koran, and the Bible before you engage with subjects of which you have nothing to contribute but ignorant libtard talking points.
That is not a moral equivalence argument. I am not excusing the evil of radical Islam by saying that the radical Jews are just as bad.
And as I read those quotes in the OT I do not see them as being applicable only to the time and place.
But whatever…here’s something new and interesting (and OT).
And btw, Judge Bates is a W. appointee.
Switch and bait…
Glad to be of service.
Then I would suggest that you read the entire passages in full, rather than just the quotes. Context really is the issue here – that and an ability to read without prejudice.
And yes, it is a moral equivalence argument.
I’m just sayin’
atheling,
Thank you for your post. I have no doubt that many people think that Islam is inherently violent and inevitably spawns violence. There is also no doubt that many others hold the opposite view, again the whole correlation vs. causation thing. I said it was an interesting debate. And that is what the grown ups were doing. Debating. Civilly. Until you came along.
So run away and let us continue, unless you can carry on without being nasty.
governmentdrone:
He can’t read it without prejudice. He’s a liberal atheist.
Nuff said.
Crybaby Pharisee:
Can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. You got your a** kicked here, and you’re trying to change the subject. Sorry, but it ain’t gonna work.
Yeah, many think Islam is inherently violent. Those are the truly educated and intelligent ones, like John Quincy Adams, Winston Churchill, de Tocqueville, Montesqiueu, et al… But you go ahead and pretend that you know better by parroting libtard talking points. It makes you so credible. /sarc.
Cue:
Captain Dogcatcher to the rescue… 3.2.1…
Of course the passages reference the specific time and place, I just read Jerehmiah 48 for some kicks, but what was the ultimate message that was meant to be taken from that story?
Its okay for the Jews to kill nonbelievers but “for a limited time only”? What was good for them then is not good for us now?
Look up the word “context”.
One thing I might comment on, if only because I just recently learned this, is that the ordering of the surahs are very significant to most Muslims. In some regard, this is sometimes suggested as why there is an issue where moderate Muslims are not more outspoken on the matter of violence on non-muslims.
What I have read (and am still researching) is that when there is a conflict of ideas or principle in the Quran, the later surah is considered the correct direction. This is troubling given that the last two (I believe) are the ones that deal with how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims.
I know that Robert Spencer has written quite a bit on this topic.
I say this only because a key distinction when trying to point to violence in the old testament is that Christians believe that the golden law given to us by Christ supercedes the old testament.
Whether you are a Christian or not, the New Testament is about peace, not violence.
Whether you are a Jew or not, you would be hard pressed to make a case that Judaism is currently being used as a justification to visit violence on another.
The 19 hijackers in 9/11 were not stupid men. Many of them were well educated. I’m not saying you’re suggesting this, chapoutier, but to acknowledge the fact that the radical Islamists cannot be written off as barbaric and foolish people.
I’m not anti-Islam, but there are several internal issues in that religion that provide the foundation for violence: jihad, fatwas, etc. Either the religion needs reform or the leaders do.
[[Sorry for the long winded OT response, but I also found this conversation interesting. ]]
Salt:
You’re right. The Meccan suras were abrogated by the Medinan suras, the latter of which came about after Mohammed came to power and wanted to destroy his enemies.
…and isn’t there something about the rule of abrogation being needed to overrule the verses that Mohammad later claimed to have been written/spoken while he was possessed by Shaitan (Satan).
Permit me to roll my eyes at Obama’s example of autoracism-
It is true that some forms of analysis really do require a term paper, and there are some situations like Obama’s autoracism for political gain that do not.
Of course. That is kinda the point I am making. But “currently” is the key. It has is the past, and one could easily see how a group of extremists could cling to “out of context” passages from the OT to justify violence against non-jews now. But, as far as I know, they do not. And I would argue that in stable, prosperous, free societies people will not generally radicalize (obviously there are always exceptions). In places that are not relatively stable, prosperous and free, those that are disaffected and disenchanted will always be able to find some justification around which to wrap their radicalization. If it isn’t Islam, it will be something else. Admittedly Islam offers up more that a few choice tidbits to latch upon.
Oh and totally OT…
Of course Obama was referring to race in his comment about not looking like all the other Presidents.
The after-the-fact spin by his campaign is bunk.
It was not a very smart thing to say and I have seen no evidence that mainstream Republicans are making any issue of his race.
Just to show all y’all I am not totally in the bag for Obama. I have at least one little pinkie toe sticking out.
I understand what you’re saying; however, I would suggest that a main issue here is whether or not the later surahs are truly considered “out of context” by most Muslims. We hear repeatedly in our media that Islam is a religion of peace. Again, there are many, many peaceful Muslims. It is not my point that all Muslims are violent.
However, the structure of Islam, as you say offers up more than few points to latch on. Given abrogation and the possibility that Mohammad himself was assassinated in order to justify further violence on non-Muslims, I would feel better about Islam if more moderate Muslims were willing to stand up for significant reform and take a stronger stance against their radical ‘cousins’.
This is by no means a new problem. It’s a very old one dating back (in America) to President Jefferson and the Barbary pirates.
What is most troubling, to me, is that the expectation of many is that we as Americans need to change our perspective and capitulate to Islam. This is what troubles many of us about Obama (see, I’m trying to get back on topic
)
And I would argue that your thesis is incorrect because there are many many wealthy Muslims in the Middle East and there are many many free Muslims in the US and Europe and yet many of the terrorists are educated (doctors in Europe, the 9/11 hijackers attended flight schools in the US) and wealthy. In fact despite being exposed to wealth and freedoms they do everything in their power to destroy wealth and freedoms for everyone but the ruling elite Muslims who want to oppress the world under one Caliphate. So by their very own words and deeds they are anti-freedom (and I could cite countless sources where they claim Democracy and wealth are the root of all evil in their views). They want the world to join them back in the 7th Century, and will do everything in their power to do so and will use even our own political ideologies, freedoms, money, and educational facilities to reach those ends.
That is why they are so dangerous, because destroying an idea or destroying an ideology is a lot harder than destroying the people carrying out those ideas.
I gave you props on another thread and tip my hat to you here as well.
This is candor the like of which we do not see from many other liberal (assuming you are such) commenters here. I appreciate it and contributes to your credibility when I disagree with you.
Hey terri — just wanted to say I’ve had some very, very close relatives go through that and I just wish you and your daughter all the best. And I’m sorry — I know how draining the experience is (I know we’ve had back and forth before, but politics shmoliticks for now).
That’s all.
I don’t think our change in perspective means capitulation, but I think you hit the nail on the head when you stated “Either the religion needs reform or the leaders do.” Christianity did have it’s share of church sponsored terror and corruption pre-Reformation. But let us not forget that Reformation took place from within Christianity not imposed by external ideologies.
On July 31st, 2008 at 2:04 pm, lgm said:
lgm, I about fell out of my chair when I read that. You are constantly doing that… siting some example of bad behavior and linking the entire conservative movement to it. How can you be so obviously hypocritical? I’ve read your posts for a long time. Most of the stuff you post seems to come right out of liberal talking points. Your arguments are shallow because they are not your own. They can’t stand close scrutiny… or any kind of scrutiny, for that matter. I don’t get it. Why do you keep posting here? What are you trying to accomplish?
(EYSIO) ???
I was a bit vague here, but one aspect to which I was obliquely referring is that there seems to be an orchestrated effort (e.g. CAIR) to ensure that we never discuss the issues in Islam without being called prejudiced or an “Islamophobe”. Criticisms of Judeo-Christian faiths abound, but somehow discussing Islam has become taboo… (…and likely why I’m a big fan of Robert Spencer.)
What is that if not a form of capitulation due to a ridiculous fear of not being “politically correct”?
Firstly, thanks for sharing the common ground. The only thing I might add to this is that non-muslims may not be able to wait for a slow change if it means more terrorist attacks.
I’m guessing that politically we will disagree on the surge in Iraq, but I would point to that as an example of how non-muslim intervention could help Sunni & Shiite form a more stable relationship. Whether or not you agree with the means, I’m guessing we can both agree that seeing the Iraqi government work together across those lines (Sunni/Shia) is encouraging.
According to TOS, it took about 1,500 years for Christianity to shape up. Islam has been at it since about 1,400 (609 to 2008). In all fairness don’t we have to spot them another 100 years to work out their issues?
That was sarcasm, btw. Before atheling blows a fuse.
Anyway, thank you for the interesting debate.
Humans will go extinct at some point… what type of creatures do you think will evolve next? I don’t suppose dinosaurs were stupid enough to invent god like we did.. hopefully, the next species up to bat will not do so either.
Blow a fuse on your silly comment?
Not worth the powder, Pee Wee.
From Brigitte Gabriel’s ACT:
Yeah. Give them another hundred years and they’ll be peaceful/sarc. In the meantime, we continue to let thim in.
Barack says he doesn’t look like the others on the money? Well, I’m looking at a $5 bill and Abe does have big ears like Obambi so Obambi is a liar.
Then why on earth would you bring up such a goofy relativism in the first place if you admitedly haven’t the knowledge to back it up?
But if you had enough knowledge to carry on with a “contest” you started, the first round would be chap v. chap;you flip-flopped from “The Old Testament contains several calls” to “plenty of passages”. It’s easy to make such mistakes when one relies on one’s behind for facts.
The fact is you just have no idea – absolutely zero – what you’re talking about. That’s why you feel the need to duck and dodge when pressed for facts as opposed to just willy-nilly tossing out completely derriere-derived notions.
There is no mystery why Islam’s followers are violent and psychotic. We’ve seen it before, most notably in the followers of National Socialism. Both groups just follow the beliefs of their respective ideologies. Violent ideologies attracts violent, sick people.
What purplepeep said.
On July 31st, 2008 at 11:37 am, lgm said:
Care to provide evidence of where and when he said that? As I recall, McCain’s gone out of his way to avoid bringing Obama’s race up, whereas Obama himself will bring it up every so often to get attention.
(Gah, now I have to go shower — I fed the damn troll.)
It’s official. “O”bama hates America.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/airplane.asp
The lapel pin.
Not visiting the injured soldiers while Germany and now this?
So does McCain…at least according by your standards and using the same link you provided.
I’m confused. The site YOU cite says customizing planes on the campaign trail is standard, and that Bob Dole and George W. Bush did the same thing. Do they hate the U.S. as well?
Also, the troop visit wasn’t sanctioned by the Pentagon. And honestly, can you tell me that if he had visited them, you wouldn’t be calling him out for “exploiting” the troops for political gain?
lol, did you read this piece nyk:
Barack Hussein Obama DOES have a
funnyscary name. If I found out a guy with that name was on my plane flight I would be VERY nervous!There! I fixed it for you
You are confused, honey. Look at the links provided for Dole’s and Bush’s planes. American flag intact. Even Kerry’s plane has the American flag on it.
Finally, he demonstrates good judgment.
I don’t see one on McCain’s though.
So don’t vote for him, then.
That doesn’t surprise me. I figure you have a hard time seeing anything with your nose buried so far up Obama’s ass. You don’t seem to understand where you are. This is a conservative site. Not a Republican site. Conservative = Good, liberal = bad. McCain is a liberal. We just prefer him over Obama, we don’t really like him. Take atheling’s advice.
Damn the Obama camp and Democrats can’t be happy about this.
And they have to hate that we are not in a recession.
Hadn’t yet seen this, TOS, so thanks. And yet, it’s not surprising. It’s so obvious that was the idea from its very inception. McCain suggests that Obama is out of touch for not going to Iraq. Obama does — and then goes further, in terms of touching base with what I’ve always known to be our allies — and then McCain makes it into a negative point. It’s silly. And so transparently political.
According to Bill Clinton, he saw this mapped out in memos written by and for Obama staffers. I believe that Bill would have excellent sources there.. Time for some questions.
Puhiawa, good thinking but can we trust anything that comes out of Billy’s mouth? Don’t think so.
Rob wrote:
First, I have to ask — in all seriousness, Rob — are you an atheist? I assume you may be joking (or being sarcastic), but I’m asking out of sincere curiosity.
There. Fixed it for YOU (Just returning the favor. Because I owed ya one!)
Can’t see what’s not there.
HOw come the Messiah didn’t go the ally Pakistan on his triumphal Entry tour? Just wondering what the dealio was with that….
Obama should talk about, oh, say the issues, instead of projecting his own comments on his race onto others. But that would be too much thinking and standing for something for him, methinks.
MJK, I’m not an Obama fan but that projection was good Politics from a nuts and bolts kind of way. I’ve posted on here before that August 15th could be a very strong day for the Obama team. All he needs to do is go to Springfield, Illinois on that date and delivery another one of those speeches on race relations. You see, Springfield is where he started his campaign and he spent a lot of time there when he was in office prior to becoming Senator.
What’s August 15th? 100th year of the nasty Race Riots that happened in Springfield Il. which borne the NAACP. Timing is everything. And bringing the race card up now will have the news talking about it. I’m sure they are gambling this race thing starts to grow until he’s forced to address it. He’d then choose that date and say “see how far we’ve came in 100 years?”
Any news is good news (so long as it doesn’t involve a blue dress
)
Well, the MOST discussion I see Obama’s race is when I visit this site (Yeah. Really). Just sayin’. (And for the record, it’s fairly easy to find out his thoughts on political issues. Visit his site, learn his Senate record, or listen to interviews he does or has done, most of which are posted online, the bulk of which — despite what this site suggests, and I hope you read others and newspapers — make clear his stances.)
“What the McCain campaign doesn’t want people to know, according to one GOP strategist I spoke with over the weekend, is that they had an ad script ready to go if Obama had visited the wounded troops saying that Obama was…wait for it…using wounded troops as campaign props.”
Sorry, but mixing an alleged, unsourced “one GOP strategist” with a snarky article doesn’t pass the smell test.
The bottom line, no matter how many excuses The One comes up with, is that Obama choose to snub wounded troops. Americans don’t take such things lightly.
Even the uber-liberal New York Times underscored that point, noting:
“One question remains: Why didn’t Mr. Obama leave his aides behind, even the retired general, and make the visit by himself?”
Intead he choose yet again to do the wrong thing and Americans called him on it. Obama needs to issue a genuine apology to America for his wrong choice in snubbing it’s wounded troops.
“Obama should talk about, oh, say the issues, instead of projecting his own comments on his race onto others.”
In the interest of saving folks time and mouse clicks. here’s a summary:
“Hope. Change. Hoping for Chamge. Changing for Hope. I’m the One The whole world as been waiting for. Anyone who disagrees with Me or disapproves of Me is a racist.”
You’re welcome.
purplepeep:
If he’s not elected in November, he can skip the apology. Having him sink into well deserved obscurity is reward enough for me.
Just sayin’
“PS – I’d rather be in the Ritz-Carlton Spa than visit wounded soldiers.”
Let’s say visiting the soldiers was the right thing to do. Would a principled person care what McCain said? (Assuming the McCain camp tried to be negative about it?) And wouldn’t they look even better after blowing off any criticism? Weak excuse.
I want to know why Obama doesn’t get in trouble for lines like:
“I did what every wise man does when faced with a difficult decision: I prayed”
Isn’t that saying that people who don’t pray when faced with a difficult decision are fools? Republicans get roasted alive when they say stuff like this.
What’s amazing about this is 1) it bears ZERO resemblance to anything on his site and 2) how classic it is that you can’t actually rebut what’s there, so you regurgitate conservative talking points.