Michelle Malkin » Fighting back against Obama’s thugs

Fighting back against Obama’s thugs

By Michelle Malkin • August 26, 2008 11:49 AM

Here is the ad Barack Obama doesn’t want you to see. Pass it on.

I cannot stress how outrageous the Obama campaign’s attempt to silence the creators of the Ayers ad is. Mr. Hope and Change is applying Chicago-style mafia tactics to intimidate those who want to alert the nation to Obama’s troubling ties to, and longtime relationship with, the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist. Obama’s lawyers and minions are playing hardball with TV stations that have dared to air the ad. They have the gall to champion campaign finance integrity — even as Obama has just admitted hiding payments to his Chicago cronies at ACORN. The Obama campaign can’t cite anything false or defamatory about the ad because it is accurate and truthful. This intimidation campaign is of a piece with the left-wing MoveOn effort to bully GOP donors. Remember?

I’ve just obtained the response of the group running the ads that Obama doesn’t want you to see:

American Issues Project Responds to Obama Campaign’s Efforts to Compel TV Stations, Government to Censor Ad

Obama team fails to convince stations to kill ad in spite of threats, harassment and false claims

Washington, DC – August 26, 2008 – The Barack Obama campaign has resorted to a campaign of intimidation and legal threats to convince television stations and the federal government to force off the air an ad by the American Issues Project detailing the link between Sen. Obama and remorseless domestic terrorist William Ayers.

The Obama campaign has been contacting stations running American Issues Project’s ad in an unsuccessful attempt to compel them to pull the spot. The Obama campaign also sent a letter yesterday to the Department of Justice asking the government to investigate American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors. With no success on either front, the campaign has begun running its own ad in response. Notably, this ad fails to dispute a single fact in the American Issues Project’s initial ad.

“The Obama campaign knows it can’t argue the facts of the link between Obama and Ayers, so it is instead resorting to a desperate campaign of intimidation and legal threats,” said Ed Martin, American Issues Project’s president. “The scary question this raises is if Barack Obama demonstrates this little regard for free speech from his opponents during the campaign, what could the American people expect from him as a president?”

“The tremendous amount of time, money and effort the campaign is expending to run its own ads on the Ayers controversy and dispatch its hired guns all over the country – during the Democratic convention – speaks to the fear they must have that this issue is resonating with American voters.”

American Issues Project sent a letter today to the Department of Justice responding to the Obama campaign’s claims. Key points from the letter:

AIP is organized as a qualified nonprofit corporation as that term is defined in the regulations of the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) 11 C.F.R. §114.10. As such, AIP enjoys the protections of the provisions of the Supreme Court’s decision more than twenty years ago in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 646 (D. Mass. 1984), aff’d, 769 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1985), aff’d, 479 U.S. 238 (1986)…

AIP complies with each and every one of the provisions outlined by the Supreme Court in the MCFL case, as well as the regulations of the FEC promulgated subsequently…

Counsel for the Obama Campaign is undoubtedly fully knowledgeable of the reporting and compliance responsibilities of qualified nonprofit corporations, such as NARAL-Pro Choice America (“NARAL”), an organization that, ironically, also claims protection as an entity described in Massachusetts Citizens for Life v. FEC…

AIP functions in exactly the same manner as NARAL and any other qualified nonprofit corporation. NARAL has made substantial independent expenditures in opposition to Sen. McCain’s presidential candidacy during the 2008 election cycle and continuing through the present time. Yet, no objection to those expenditures has been raised by the Obama campaign…

Surely we have not come to a point where the government and its agencies are used to protect presidential candidates from citizens’ speech, essentially destroying the very purpose, meaning and historical essence of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The full text of the letter is available at: http://www.americanissuesproject.org/

The American Issues Project’s ad began airing Thursday, August 21, and will continue through the Democratic Convention. An electronic version of the ad and full documentation of all statements made are available at American Issues Project’s website: www.americanissuesproject.org.

About American Issues Project

American Issues Project is a 501(c)4 organization representing a coalition of conservative activists committed to raising important issues that deserve deeper examination given their impact on policy and politics. In accordance with federal law, American Issues Project only solicits and accepts contributions from individuals and not from any business corporation. For more information, visit: www.americanissuesproject.org.

***

Spread the ad far and wide. Will they come after bloggers next?

Shut us up?

No, they can’t.

Posted in: Bill Ayers

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (299)

trackbacks (72)

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

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]

#201

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:26 pm, mistressjustice said:

Will Obama go the way of Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, or will he turn into the rabid pitbull we need him to be?

Where’s the full quote that “respectable” and “mainstream” come from? LOL. Whatever, screw it. It’s time to fight back.

Of course the Right is trying to make more out of this relationship than is actually there. How does one define “friend”? However it suits the smearer’s purpose, that’s how. You can’t go around trying to shut down these ads, because people just think you’re hiding something. You come out with an ad of your own explaining the flimsy relationship, and your feelings on Ayers.
Next, go on the attack. Gloves come off. Bring back the Keating 5 “misjudgements”. Remember how the rigthwing attack machine sank McCain in South Carolina? Well pick and choose what fits from that campaign also.

what’s Cindy hiding? Ties to corporations that will benefit from McCain’s health care plan? Investments in overseas sweat shops? $3.5 million in Iraqi exile cash? And out of court settlement for a crime committee by John? She must be hiding something, or she would have released them.”

It’s an easy game to play. Raise suspicion and then assume that a legitimate privacy right is actually a sinister cover-up.

Exactly. If people want to attack Michelle O’s charcter, then the Left can surely question Cindy’s. How much of America really knows about her stealing from a charity to feed her addiction. That sounds worse than Barack’s teenage drug use to me.

John McCain has had many election opponents over the years, so borrow from those ads. Moreover I’d play “bomb,bomb,Iran” with a version of the little girls picking daisies a few times a week.

Screw whining about this stuff. Nobody plays politics dirtier than the Republican party. The Left has to get even dirtier in return. This is just the beginning, and you can bet your a$$ that the Rev. Wright stuff will resurface. The Dems have to get on offense. They have to be brutal, and unmerciful. McCain had a lot taken out of him in the SC primary in 2000. Since then he sold out, and decided, “if you can’t beat em, join em”. It’s time to kick his teeth in, and beat some humiltiy back into Maverick McCain. It’s time to get ugly, hide the kids. As the Right understands, the object is to win. Let’s send the republican’s “chickens home to roost”.
Game on.
#202

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:26 pm, RetFireman said:

For all of you who still think that the SBV were nothing but liars and were merely being evil and mean, just remember one thing:

There have been numerous people and groups that have come forward following the claims of the SwiftBoaters, calling them liars and saying that their claims were wrong.

Lots of people, and it has even been turned into a term meaning just that.

Escept for the fact that there is one person who has, as of today, NEVER stated that what the SBV have claomed was a lie. One person who has never denied any of their claims. One person who has never, not once, come forward to say, “The SwiftBoat Veterans have made claims that were false and wrong. They are liars”.

That person?

John F. Kerry
#203

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:27 pm, chapoutier said:

You claimed it was not possible to prove the SBVT as truth.

No I did not. I said that it seems clear that neither side has proven the truth of their claims. Never said that it was not possible, just that that has not happened.

And you cannot pick one element of one of the many claims made by the SBV’s, give one piece of evidence that it is true and extrapolate from that that Kerry has “admitted” that the SBV’s were telling “the truth” and by that, I mean the entire truth about everything they claimed. That is just stupid and defies logic.
#204

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:30 pm, WarEagle82 said:

Excuse me, but this ISN’T helping Michelle Obama’s children!
#205

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:30 pm, englishqueen01 said:

Mistressjustice:

Fine. Let’s inundate the public with the facts - McCain’s service, his experience, his record.

And let’s look at Obama - his friendships, his mentor Rev. Wright, his unabashed love of baby killing.

The problem liberals have is that - when the truth of both sides is revealed, the conservative side wins out. Every time.

Which is why Michelle O’s speech last night was nothing if not thinly veiled conservativism. Gone is the “I’m ashamed of my country” rhetoric because camp Obama knows it’s detrimental to his campaign.

You want a war? Game on. You got it, sister.

Obama will destroy American and I’m ready to fight to prevent that from happening.
#206

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pm, RetFireman said:

The Left has to get even dirtier in return.

Yeah! maybe they can chase down and scream at and threaten news crews and women bloggers! That sounds great! masybe they can shout down any and all opposition when they are having their “rallies”. ooo, I know…maybe they can continually state that President bush is an idiot and the proof is in the gaffes he makes when talking, but say that everyone needs to ignore The Golden Calf’s and to do so only means that the person is a racist. In fact, just claim that the simple act of opposing The golden Calf and not voting for him makes the person a racist.
#207

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:32 pm, chapoutier said:

Escept for the fact that there is one person who has, as of today, NEVER stated that what the SBV have claomed was a lie. One person who has never denied any of their claims. One person who has never, not once, come forward to say, “The SwiftBoat Veterans have made claims that were false and wrong. They are liars”.

That person?

John F. Kerry

“They lied and lied and lied about everything,” Mr. Kerry says in an interview in his Senate office. “How many lies do you get to tell before someone calls you a liar? How many times can you be exposed in America today?”
#208

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:32 pm, BemusedLib said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:53 pm, twofoot said:

I’m not familiar with the term. Please clarify.

Probably because it wasn’t said that way. When asked how he won so many engagements with the enemey, Nathan Bedford Forrest once replied, “Get there first with the most men”.

It has been slaughtered over the years to either intentionally make him sound like an uneducated hick, or because those who heard it and passed it on simply didn’t know any better.

From a military philosophy of “get there the first with the most men” we get people who claim it is “firstest with the mostest”. It shows an ignorance of history and one of histories greatest military commanders.

By the way, contrary to his stated philosophy of getting there the first with most men, Forrest almost always faced overwhelming odds.

Despite all that, I am not sure what it has to do with this particular thread. More ignorance I suppose?

I in no way meant to make the esteemed general sound like an ignorant hick, it’s simply that that’s the way I’ve heard it and, in informal back-and-forth, it has a certain zest. Though no military historian, I am not unfamiliar with the general’s successes. Though the Yanks and the Rebs fought one another with ferocity, it is said — I’m sure you can verify this — that they crossed the picket lines at night to trade tobacco and coffee and commiserate with one another, a bit of civility we might want to consider before we begin labeling one another ignorant.

As to its relevance here, I was suggesting metaphorically that in a political campaign it is good tactics to move swiftly and respond strongly when attacked as, in this case, Obama has done.
#209

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:33 pm, RetFireman said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:30 pm, WarEagle82 said:

Excuse me, but this ISN’T helping Michelle Obama’s children!

Shhhh…you cannot mention The Chosen Prodigy. You can get sued.
#210

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:37 pm, StanW said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:27 pm, chapoutier said:

And you cannot pick one element of one of the many claims made by the SBV’s, give one piece of evidence that it is true and extrapolate from that that Kerry has “admitted” that the SBV’s were telling “the truth” and by that, I mean the entire truth about everything they claimed. That is just stupid and defies logic.

So John Kerry says his first Purple Heart was awarded for wounds sustained under combat conditions. The SBVT say that they could not have been, based upon Kerry’s own journal. Kerry then comes back and says his first Purple Heart may not have been earned in combat.

SBVT 1 - Kerry 0

Kerry said he spent Christmas in Cambodia under orders from Presidnet Nixon. The SBVT say that Kerry was not in Cambodia at Christmas and Nixon was not even President at the time Kerry claims it happened. Kerry finally admits that he was mistaken.

SBVT 2 - Kerry 0

Kerry claimed he threw his war medals over the fense during a protest. The SBVT say his medals are in a frame on his wall. Kerry admits that he threw someone elses medals.

SBVT 3 - Kerry 0

You cannot even provide a single example that the SBVT were lying about anything. I just gave you three where Kerry himself admited that he lied and the SBVT were telling the truth. It certainly means your quote “Certainly enough such that it is laughable to assert with any sort of legitimacy that their allegations were proven true.” is pure BS.

You are just to petty to admit it, Chap.
#211

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:37 pm, T-Bone said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:21 pm, BemusedLib said:
Puts on drama queen hat: “what’s Cindy hiding? Ties to corporations that will benefit from McCain’s health care plan? Investments in overseas sweat shops? $3.5 million in Iraqi exile cash? And out of court settlement for a crime committee by John? She must be hiding something, or she would have released them.”

Put on Dunce hat and go put your nose in the corner.
#212

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:38 pm, Dimsdale said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:21 pm, BemusedLib said:

Puts on drama queen hat: “what’s Cindy hiding? Ties to corporations that will benefit from McCain’s health care plan? Investments in overseas sweat shops? $3.5 million in Iraqi exile cash? And out of court settlement for a crime committee by John? She must be hiding something, or she would have released them.”

It’s an easy game to play. Raise suspicion and then assume that a legitimate privacy right is actually a sinister cover-up.

But you are the one playing it by asking for Cindy McC’s records. It brings to mind the Clinton sell off of pharmaceutical stocks just prior to their attacks on same. If you are referring to the Obama-Ayers papers, unlike tax records, these are, or were, public records, and as such, should have been released immediately.

A more pertinent question would be “who asked them to be kept under lock and key?

And I kind of think spouses should reveal — Ds and Rs — if candidates do. If there’s something nefarious going on, there’s no real line of separation between husband and wife.

I agree, if there is a possible conflict of interest, like Pelosi’s investments in the Pickens plan industries. If it is something like monies in trusts or inheritances etc., then it should be off limits.
#213

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:38 pm, guitarplayer said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pm, chapoutier said:

Because he is not primarily interested in them being found guilty of a crime or tort, even if they are. He is interested in getting the ads pulled as soon as possible.

So, whenever a politcian wants an ad pulled, the freedom of speech is suspended.
#214

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:43 pm, sambo said:

mistressjustice said:
You can’t go around trying to shut down these ads, because people just think you’re hiding something. You come out with an ad of your own explaining the flimsy relationship, and your feelings on Ayers.

agreed…thats what we’re saying.

Nobody plays politics dirtier than the Republican party.

Are you sure MJ…I don’t know?

Next, go on the attack. Gloves come off. Bring back the Keating 5 “misjudgements”. Remember how the rigthwing attack machine sank McCain in South Carolina?…

what’s Cindy hiding? …

John McCain has had many election opponents over the years, so borrow from those ads….

The Left has to get even dirtier in return. …

The Dems have to get on offense. They have to be brutal, and unmerciful…

It’s time to kick his teeth in, and beat some humiltiy back into Maverick McCain. It’s time to get ugly, hide the kids.
#215

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:44 pm, Misscheryl said:

Shhhh…you cannot mention The Chosen Prodigy. You can get sued.

By the way, speaking of the chosen children, did anyone notice the disgusting show of the “Hi Daddy…I love you..” last night? After seeing all that genuine love, I’m convinced - he is the one - I’m voting for Obama!
#216

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:48 pm, chapoutier said:

So, whenever a politcian wants an ad pulled, the freedom of speech is suspended.

How exactly is freedom of speech suspended? Obama is not the government, which is the only entity that can interfere with freedom of speech, as defined in the Constitution. And if the DOJ chooses to get involved, they are the ones that make the determination as to whether a law was broken, not Obama. And gee, I wonder what way the current totally non-politicized DOJ would come out on that

Obama is using his influence to try to get the ad pulled, just like MM used her influence to get the Dunkin Donuts ad pulled. Unless you can point out some way in which he is using illegal influence.
#217

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:48 pm, GJCorby said:

Obama the candidate with sinister associates to ~~hide~~ cover up.
#218

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm, neocon527 said:

Two-tour Green Beret Ted Sampley of the 2004 “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” is now targeting the Republican nominee with the group “Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain.”

I assume you’ll are interested to hear what he has to say, right? Naturally, FOX News will put him on Hannity and Colmes, maybe midday with Cavuto too. Right, publius?
#219

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm, trailortrash said:

saved this vid jic
#220

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm, corkie said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:16 pm, chapoutier said:

I pointed out that there was clearly enough dispute and evidence about the issue that it is absurd to simply claim that what the swiftboaters said was “true.” It is a subtle, but important, distinction.

chapoutier, by your logic, then it is absurd to simply claim that what Kerry said was “true.”
#221

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm, chapoutier said:

chapoutier, by your logic, then it is absurd to simply claim that what Kerry said was “true.”

You will note I never said that.
#222

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:56 pm, guitarplayer said:

How exactly is freedom of speech suspended? Obama is not the government, which is the only entity that can interfere with freedom of speech, as defined in the Constitution. And if the DOJ chooses to get involved, they are the ones that make the determination as to whether a law was broken, not Obama. And gee, I wonder what way the current totally non-politicized DOJ would come out on that

Because by crying about the ad to the DOJ, it makes it appear that he doesn’t want the person or group who put out the ad the right to put the ad out. That is enough for me and most on this blog to wonder what he would do if he had presidential authority. If the ad is false, then refute it. If it’s libelous, then sue in court. Any court would hear case almost immediately because of the election.

Obama is using his influence to try to get the ad pulled, just like MM used her influence to get the Dunkin Donuts ad pulled. Unless you can point out some way in which he is using illegal influence.

The difference is that MM is a private citizen fighting for a cause. Obama wants to be president. If he pulls this kind of crap when he’s just running for the office, I’d hate to think what he would do if he ever got into the office.
#223

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

mistressjustice said:

Will Obama go the way of Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, or will he turn into the rabid pitbull we need him to be?

Why don’t we send you and your black boot crew after McCain and you can stomp that old white man into the ground.
#224

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:04 pm, englishqueen01 said:

Will Obama go the way of Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, or will he turn into the rabid pitbull we need him to be?

Just a hint - a guy who’s willing to disarm a nation faced with threats from Islamic radicals is not a pitbull.
#225

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:05 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 3:16 pm, Chief RZ said:
Quote from ItookTheRedPill:

Those who can’t handle the truth try to silence those who speak it

That is the MO of communists, of which many social/democrats are IMO.

Damn straight!
Senator Joe McCarthy was right:

Drawing on primary sources—including never-before-published government records and FBI files, as well as recent research gleaned from Soviet archives and intercepted transmissions between Moscow spymasters and their agents in the United States—Evans presents irrefutable evidence of a relentless Communist drive to penetrate our government, influence its policies, and steal its secrets. Most shocking of all, he shows that U.S. officials supposedly guarding against this danger not only let it happen but actively covered up the penetration. All of this was precisely as Joe McCarthy contended.

I believe the reason that the Democrat Party now wants to be called the “Democratic” Party is because they have been taken over by “Democratic Socialists/Communists”.

The problem is that they also have their fingers in the Republican Party.

Anthropogenic (Man-made) Global Warming (AGW) is a complete hoax, and is a tool of Communists and their “57 states” Arab alies to further rob the United States using AGW taxes.

Amnesty is a Communist plan to turn 20 million “proletariat” into new voters. It would also send shock waves through our economy as every employer who currently employs illegals would suddenly have to pay them minimum wage. It’s a recipie for disaster.

Now tell me why John McCain supports AGW taxes and Amnesty.

The man was brainwashed by Communists for years. Who is to say that he wasn’t made to believe that Socialism is a good idea?
#226

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:07 pm, graysonret said:

This just shows me, once again, exactly how the democrats and Obama plan to run this country, once they have total control. It would make Stalin proud.
#227

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:08 pm, Misscheryl said:

MJ said: Will Obama go the way of Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, or will he turn into the rabid pitbull we need him to be?

Where’s the full quote that “respectable” and “mainstream” come from? LOL. Whatever, screw it. It’s time to fight back.

The problem here is Obama isn’t smart enough to pick his battles.
#228

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:09 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

The Communist Party USA is real. They have written a new Constitution. They have a plan for “The Road to Socialism USA“.

President Ronald Reagan understood the communist threat.
#229

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:12 pm, Gorebot said:

Arugula futures are hitting an all time low.
#230

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:18 pm, twall said:

Just posted the video on Pressdemocrat.com

Waiting for personal attacks

From deep inside enemy territory in
Sonoma County California
#231

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:18 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:07 pm, graysonret said:
This just shows me, once again, exactly how the democrats and Obama plan to run this country, once they have total control. It would make Stalin proud.

There is one thing for which I thank Barack Hussein Obama II (also known as Barry Soetoro when he lived in the world’s most populous Muslim nation):

He’s waking people up to the fact that the Russians still want to “bury” us.

I’d like to know what Obama discussed with the Russians during his three-hour summit meeting:

During the August recess of 2005, Lugar, who was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went with Senator Barack Obama to Russia to inspect nuclear facilities there. They were detained for three hours at an airport in the city of Perm, near the Ural Mountains, where they were scheduled to depart for a meeting with the President and the Speaker of the House of Ukraine. They were released after a brief dialogue between U.S. and Russian officials and the Russians later apologized for this incident.
#232

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:21 pm, neocon527 said:

I don’t think the red pills are working.
#233

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:25 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

I mistakenly gave the wrong link earlier (it went to just a picture of Reagan, not the page with the speech).

Here is the correct link to the speech:
President Ronald Reagan understood the communist threat.

Reagan said about that speech:

This is the “evil empire” speech that was so often quoted as defining my attitude toward the Soviets. At the time it was portrayed as some kind of know-nothing, archconservative statement that could only drive the Soviets to further heights of paranoia and insecurity.

For too long our leaders were unable to describe the Soviet Union as it actually was. The keepers of our foreign-policy knowledge - in other words, most liberal foreign-affairs scholars, the State Department, and various columnists - found it illiberal and provocative to be so honest. I’ve always believed, however, that it’s important to define differences, because there are choices and decisions to be made in life and history.

The Soviet system over the years has purposely starved, murdered, and brutalized its own people. Millions were killed; it’s all right there in the history books. It put other citizens it disagreed with into psychiatric hospitals, sometimes drugging them into oblivion. Is the system that allowed this not evil? Then why shouldn’t we say so? Even the Soviets themselves are now admitting to annihilating their own people during Stalin’s era.

I could not in good conscience today call the Soviet Union an evil empire. As I write this, the Soviets have just conducted the most democratic elections since their revolution. Remarkable things are happening under Mikhail Gorbachev.

In addition to taking a hard line on the morality of the Soviet Union, this speech also outlines my opinions on a number of other moral issues.

-Source
#234

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:32 pm, mistressjustice said:

Just a hint - a guy who’s willing to disarm a nation faced with threats from Islamic radicals is not a pitbull.

I guess they sell tinfoil in Wisconsin if you think Obama is going to disarm our country.
Tell me, remember when Obama talked about going into Pakiston if necessary if there is actionable intelligence to get Bin Laden. Remember when you conservatives cried foul. Of course all of Obama’s ideas are bad until the Right decides to do the same. What do you think he plans on going after Bin Laden with, spitballs?
Disarm American? Get serious, will you.
#235

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:34 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

Everyone’s looking for the next Reagan, but they don’t really understand what made Reagan great, so they don’t know what to look for.

Read Reagan’s speeches and get an unfiltered understanding of the man.

I recommend starting with the “Evil Empire” speech, then “A Time For Choosing” and then read through his CPAC speeches.

Then, compare current candidates to that standard.
#236

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:35 pm, sonofdy said:

mistressjustice, it is one of the few sensable things obama has said but I doubt he would do it. A man who refuses to act to prevent a nation from getting nukes(iran) isn’t going to invade one that has (pakistan) BTW Pakistan has 150 million people. Iraq has 24 million. Do the math.
#237

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:38 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

The Soviet system over the years has purposely starved, murdered, and brutalized its own people. Millions were killed; it’s all right there in the history books. It put other citizens it disagreed with into psychiatric hospitals, sometimes drugging them into oblivion. Is the system that allowed this not evil? Then why shouldn’t we say so? Even the Soviets themselves are now admitting to annihilating their own people during Stalin’s era.

I believe an Obama Nation would be that bad. But I thank God (literally) that we will be spared that fate.
#238

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm, mistressjustice said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:35 pm, sonofdy said:

mistressjustice, it is one of the few sensable things obama has said but I doubt he would do it. A man who refuses to act to prevent a nation from getting nukes(iran) isn’t going to invade one that has (pakistan) BTW Pakistan has 150 million people. Iraq has 24 million. Do the math.

It’s so sensible that the rightwing mocked him, including Michelle Malkin. She even showed protests in the streets of Pakistan as if Obama is to be blamed for the behavior of irrational jihadists.
For the record Obama as stated unequivically numerous times that Iran can’t have nuclear weapons. He just says that we should meet with their leadership. Of course that was a bad idea, until the Bush administration decided that it was a good idea.
#239

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:42 pm, HappyGene said:

I posted this in another thread but I’m new, stupid, and I love this quote sooo much!!! I really think it shows the thoughtful nuanced arguments used by the left to thump vulgar rightwingers.
From Wonkette,
“It’s like two quarter-pound stools of alien space s*** (poo) crashed into a toxic-waste dumpster in Stamford, Connecticut, f***** (copulated), and out came their mutilated, blood-soaked carcass of a baby rat-child, Senator Joseph Lieberman.”
#240

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:43 pm, englishqueen01 said:

I guess they sell tinfoil in Wisconsin if you think Obama is going to disarm our country.

From a video by Obama:

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems…

…I will not weaponize space…

…I will slow development of future combat systems…

…and I will institute an independent “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending…

…I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons…

…and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons…

…I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material…

…and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert…

…and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals…

That sounds like the beginnings of disarmament to me.

Obama also opposes the Iraq war. What in the world makes you think he’ll go after terrorists anywhere? Or with half the force required to defeat them?

He won’t. Period.

He’ll hem and haw and try to “understand” the terrorists. To our detriment.
#241

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:44 pm, sandyb said:

I’m on vacation, but had to stop in the hotel’s biz room to check MM’s site. Heard the ad on Rush this afternoon and it made the hair on my neck stand up. Rush also aired Odumpo’s rebuttal ad — didn’t come close to the impact of the Ayers ad. Even if YouTube pulls it, an extra few million folks were treated to it courtesty of Rush. If it’s yanked, maybe he can repeat it daily. Everytime I see the mugshot of that little pissant Ayers, I want to smack him.
#242

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:45 pm, englishqueen01 said:

He just says that we should meet with their leadership.

And do what? Sing “Kumbaya”? Iran’s I’m-A-Nut-Job wants to wipe Israel (”Little Satan”) off the map, followed by the Big Satan - the United States.

Talking with terrorist thugs only exposes your jugular.

But - then again - you might want to live under a caliphate, right?
#243

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:45 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

In my opinion, it appears that Barack Obama is Russia’s candidate for POTUS, and Hillary Clinton is China’s canidate for POTUS.

There’s a Sino-Soviet war going on for control of the Democrat[ic Socialist] Party.
#244

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:48 pm, mistressjustice said:

BTW Pakistan has 150 million people. Iraq has 24 million. Do the math.

It wouldn’t be an invasion. As stated sensibly by Obama it would be a calculated strike to get Bin Laden and or Al Queda operatives. He also said that he would seek the cooporation of Pakistan’s leadership. The math is irrelevant. The invasion of Iraq was an apple. A military strike in Pakistan to get Bin Laden is an orange. You know this, and that is why you called the judgement sensible.
#245

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:49 pm, tiredofit08 said:

I am not surprised in the least that the ad is not being aired and the obamination has complained about it…the MSM is enamored with the obamination who seemingly walks on water..truthfully neither he nor “fist-bumping” michelle can tolerate any kind of criticism whatsoever…if this is how he acts before he’s even officially nominated and won a Presidency what will this country be like when he is? Not pretty that’s for sure. Stalin will look like a saint….

#240…doing precisely the opposite is what has kept the world at relative peace since the cold war began and now look at what is happening with us mired in Iraq/Afghanistan and other places around the world….if the obamination is to pull out of Iraq, then put the troops on the border and secure it by any an all means not only from the drug lords but the criminal aliens who invade this country on a daily basis…
#246

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:53 pm, mistressjustice said:

And do what? Sing “Kumbaya”?

But - then again - you might want to live under a caliphate, right?

Yes, that’s exactly what I want. How’d you guess? All liberals want to live under a caliphate. Can’t you understand simple policy and ideological differences by rational people? What’s tinfoil running at BigLots up there? How about Target? If you are against such meetings, contact the Bush Administration. It seems as though they changed their tune, and disagree with EQ.
#247

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:55 pm, bear1909 said:

#156
Again, I ask, why not just take this to court? Think of the publicity Obama would get if he wins. Why resort to this tactic that 1) makes it look like he trying to hide something, 2) makes him look scared, and 3) has all the appearance of wanting to turn the government against free speech?

One word: Cha-CHINGY_CHINGY_Dinghy. Dee NAY roh.

That suit would be tied up in court for years and bankrupt whatever money pots he has to tap.

Also, he doesnt like to get dirty. Flinchy is a punk at best and a complete yard bird worst case. Flinchy doesnt have the stomach for conflict. And he has really poor taste in suits, which he would need a lot of if he were to take this mess to trial.

There is also the remote possibility that American Issues has a bullet proof position that is highly defensible in an American Court (Flinchy could always take it up with the World Court given his lack of standing as a verifiable US citizen).

A trial might raise the nasty question of whether or not the 1st Ammendment applies to non-citizens. Oh heavens….that would bring up another python sized pecadillo.

Flinchy has too many holes in his underwear to start lobbing lawsuits at anyone. He has a lot to prove to the voters as it is, let alone some judge out there who knows Flinchy doesnt understand the US Constitution in the first place.

I dunno. Maybe i just raised more questions. (If read aloud this statement doesn’t have a voice inflection as if it were a question. But you should hear the MoonBats on tv at the convention speaking to “Action News” at 5. MY GOD! We are so ready to be taken over.)

Bear1909 out
#248

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:11 pm, mistressjustice said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm, neocon527 said:

I hope this fella has some good damaging stuff on McCain. He’ll have to tread carefully becauce JohnnyMac has the “Hanoi Hilton” card. A smear could backfire unless he has some really damaging and irrefutable material. I do like the mentality of smearing the hell out of McCain’s record, but the stuff has to be juicy, and it has to stick.

I dig your screen name,(sir/mam?)
#249

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:26 pm, TuskAmerica said:

HOW TO START EACH DAY WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK

1. Open a new file in your computer.
2. Name it ‘Barack Obama’.
3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.
4. Empty the Recycle Bin.
5. Your PC will ask you: ‘Do you really want to get rid of ‘Barack Obama?’
6. Click ‘Yes.’
7. Feel better?

GOOD - Tomorrow we’ll do Nancy Pelosi!
#250

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:30 pm, neocon527 said:

I tried that with Bush, Tusk. And the satisfaction was fleeting. Y’know, when reality set in.
#251

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:42 pm, travlinman said:

Barack Obama on his relationship to Ayers:

“Mr. Ayers is a 60-plus-year-old individual who lives in my neighborhood, who did something that I deplore 40 years ago when I was 6 or 7 years old,” Obama said then. “By the time I met him, he is a professor of education at the University of Illinois. We served on a board together that had Republicans, bankers, lawyers, focused on education.”

travlinman on Barack’s excuse:

If we except Barack’s logic, we could expect him to view Charlie Manson in the same light should Charlie make parole, get hired at a local University as a professor and move into the Obama neighborhood. Even if Charlie was unapologetic for his crimes from almost 40 years ago. I can only assume for BHO, time heals all wounds.

And when did it become illegal for a private American citizen to use personal funds to air an ad showing the link between BHO and Ayers?
#252

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:43 pm, corkie said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm, chapoutier said:

chapoutier, by your logic, then it is absurd to simply claim that what Kerry said was “true.”

You will note I never said that.

I will happily note that you never said that. And you will note that your logic implies that it’s absurd for anyone to claim that Kerry told the truth about his war experiences.
#253

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:50 pm, MNUSMCDavid said:

mistress justice
You are aware, of course, that the Pakistani government has collapsed as a result of Musharraf’s resignation. Just what cooperation could O’Bama expect? The naivety of this skinny little runt is beyond comprehension
#254

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:52 pm, corkie said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm, mistressjustice said:

She even showed protests in the streets of Pakistan as if Obama is to be blamed for the behavior of irrational jihadists.

No, we don’t blame strong statements by Americans for the behavior of irrational jihadists. You’re thinking of liberals.

I’m sure Michelle showed protests in the streets of Pakistan for the purpose of demonstrating the futility of trying to appease irrational jihadists.
#255

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:54 pm, T-Bone said:

You mean this Ted Sampley?

Following is quoted from Prisoners of Hope, by Susan Katz Keating, pages 193 - 205.

“Navy Lieutenant Robert Wetzel was an A-10 intruder pilot during the first Gulf War and was listed as missing in action.

According to Sampley, that designation was just a cover for the grisly truth. Wetzler had survived the shootdown only to parachute into a crowd of angry Iraqis, who all happened to be carrying knives and carved him up on the spot.

The Pentagon doesn’t want anybody to know this Samply confided, but its all right. I already told his family.

Wentzel eventually came home, alive & intact. Sampley later admitted that he never really believed the story but had told it anyway to publicize the plight of POWs”.

Liberals love crapweasels like this. Anything to promote the cause, right Comrade?
#256

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:56 pm, bear1909 said:

Of course that was a bad idea, until the Bush administration decided that it was a good idea.

The problem with comments like the one quoted is that the comment presumes that a statement drafted from within a Clinton infested state department, led by the feckless Condi Rice, reflects the will of the Bush executive leadership cadre, and that the Condi farce reflects the military strategy no one wants to admit is unfolding in front of their eyes.

I dont know of any trueblood conservatives who hold opinions that discussing anything with the rats in Tehran is either necessary or prudent. And Dick Cheney is among them

The die was cast a long time ago with Iran. “Words” from a Bush administration are not the same as the postmodern subjectivism of Flinchy Binghole and the Marxist minions who seek to “talk” their “change” into the hearts and minds of a Muslim “governments” across the Middle East. (I’ve taken the liberty of assigning a new name to BHo since his real one is in dispute. Flinchy works and captures his twitchy political demeanor)

Military preparedness and logistical coordination in the region *suggest* that Israel and the United States are prepared and ready to take out Syria and Iran, while empowering the world’s largest ethnic minority (Kurds) to play a key role in the ground war inside and on the border with Iran.

Also, guided missile defense systems imported to Syria and Iran have either been destroyed (Syria courtesy of Israel) or hopelessly jammed (courtesy of US espionage and Israeli execution.) Those are both verified achievements. And these speak more about “good ideas” than diplomatic Foggy Bottom horse hockey at Dept of State.

Bear1909 out.
#257

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:57 pm, BuckeyeSam said:

Here in SW Ohio, Fox has evidently said “screw Obama.” Fox ran the Ayers ad in a commercial break during The Hume Report.

Giddy up!
#258

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:58 pm, neocon527 said:

Corkie, there’s a convenient search box up top. This is the story:

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/05/way-to-go-barack/

The nuance you’ve credited it with seems to be lacking.
#259

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:59 pm, T-Bone said:

Link to Ted Sampley quote above

http://www.miafacts.org/prankster.htm
#260

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:00 pm, corkie said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:53 pm, mistressjustice said:

Yes, that’s exactly what I want. How’d you guess? All liberals want to live under a caliphate. Can’t you understand simple policy and ideological differences by rational people? What’s tinfoil running at BigLots up there?

I don’t believe that you want to live under a caliphate, but there’s a big difference between being a tin-foiled conspiracy theorist and believing in a “falling domino” principle.

How is that not obvious to you?
#261

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:05 pm, neocon527 said:

Aww, guys, I thought you liked Ted Sampley. Y’know, when John Kerry was the target. But now he’s a big meanie, huh?
#262

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:05 pm, corkie said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:58 pm, neocon527 said:

Corkie, there’s a convenient search box up top. This is the story:

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/05/way-to-go-barack/

The nuance you’ve credited it with seems to be lacking.

Michelle clearly starts her post by poking fun at the “Obama for Change” slogan. Get it? She was making fun of the claim of change.
#263

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:11 pm, mistressjustice said:

#258, Thanks for saving me the time.

#253, Musharraf was in power when Barack made the statement. Of course a change in circumstances may cause a change in opinion. You know that.

The problem with comments like the one quoted is that the comment presumes that a statement drafted from within a Clinton infested state department, led by the feckless Condi Rice, reflects the will of the Bush executive leadership cadre, and that the Condi farce reflects the military strategy no one wants to admit is unfolding in front of their eyes.

Bush is the COM. It’s his administration. No “talking” would be done without his appoval. If you’re saying he has no say so, well than the elephants’ president is more inept than I could ever imagine. There’s no way you can give him a pass on reversing course, even if it means following Obama’s ideology.

On August 26th, 2008 at 6:57 pm, BuckeyeSam said:

I hope USC takes care of the Buckeyes, so that they don’t have to humiliate themselves in January. I’m tired of them wasting everyone’s time. OVERRATED. clap clap clap clap clap
#264

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:12 pm, neocon527 said:

Why refer to them as Macho Man remarks? Or that the protests were what he had “wrought?” I mean, presumably, a strike on Pakistan to thwart a terrorist plot or nab Osama Bin Laden, would be something Michelle would agree with? No? I mean, are we so partisan that even when we agree with something the opposition says, we have to mock it for being similar to something we would say? I mean, I know that’s basically true, but, still, the implication is that this flag burning and these protests were prompted by Obama’s statements, which would imply exactly what you says it doesn’t.
#265

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:14 pm, mistressjustice said:

Michelle clearly starts her post by poking fun at the “Obama for Change” slogan. Get it? She was making fun of the claim of change.

Huh?

MM says.

Condoleezza Rice tries to douse the flames Barack poured fuel on.
#266

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:19 pm, mistressjustice said:

I don’t believe that you want to live under a caliphate

Well thanks, I guess. I suppose you’re more rational than some.
#267

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:33 pm, bear1909 said:

Bush is the COM. It’s his administration. No “talking” would be done without his appoval. If you’re saying he has no say so, well than the elephants’ president is more inept than I could ever imagine. There’s no way you can give him a pass on reversing course, even if it means following Obama’s ideology.

Why would anybody try to make a ridiculous argument that Bush has no say so? Oh, i forgot. That is a rhetorical device intended to switch the argument from the simple truth that war is politics by other means (which includes using misdirection of using Fops at State to mislead one’s enemies or at least confuse them).

Bush has let State do one thing while the military and Israel do another. It’s a time-tested strategy for kicking the ass of one’s enemies.

It is a bit of a stretch to say that the Bush doctrine is influenced by the random and inconsistent musings of Flinchy Binghole, the international relations major running for President of the United States.

Bush doesnt need a pass. The course has not been reversed one iota even though he has allowed State to concoct some bogus pandering move to the Rats of Tehran. He’d rather kick ass.

Lay your money on the table. Syria and Iran- both governments will be crippled in the months to come (along with Bush signing over the oil rich lands within the US to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, thus wrecking the economies of both and Russia with the stroke of a pen).

Bear1909 out.
#268

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:35 pm, neocon527 said:

Gee, Bear, when’s the parade? Will there be banners?
#269

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:46 pm, bear1909 said:

Gee, Bear, when’s the parade? Will there be banners?

LOL. funny. Ya know something? This whole debate over offshore drilling was precipitated by Bush’s hint that he would sign that executive order if Congress did not act. One of the fruits has been the severe weakening of Pelosi Galore and Bending Reid as majority leaders. Part of the same trend i speak of in the post you refer to.

The countries of Iran and Syria have been severely weakened defense-wise and have not been able to repair the damage wrought by US and Israeli joint actions.

Add this current carrier battle group on its way to the Gulf and smart money says things are moving in a very straightforward direction while the masses quibble over whether Flinchy is right or wrong in his drivelings on foreign policy.

Should that milque-toast get elected (God Forbid) his first sitting in the sitch room with the joint chiefs will be an eye opener for him. What he says now doesnt mean chit.

The train has already left the station. One carrier battle group can give any air defenseless country a significantly bad day.

But dont let me keep you from your fun. Debate away.

Bear1909 out.
#270

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm, mistressjustice said:

It is a bit of a stretch to say that the Bush doctrine is influenced by the random and inconsistent musings of Flinchy Binghole, the international relations major running for President of the United States.

Does the goofy nickname schtick get old to you? I too doubt if they are directly influenced by Obama’s opinion. What I do know is that the Bush administration has decided to “talk” to Iran, after condemning the idea from the likes of Obama. That is a reversal. I am glad they made such a move, but Obama had the correct idea.

Lay your money on the table. Syria and Iran- both governments will be crippled in the months to come (along with Bush signing over the oil rich lands within the US to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, thus wrecking the economies of both and Russia with the stroke of a pen).

How many months there Bear? If you mean coming months as in within the next year, “no freaken way”. Speaking of laying $. I never got a response to my request for a wager on your claim that Obama will announce himself as a Muslim after being sworn in. I’ll bet whatever you want on that one. I’m dead serious. You pick the terms…4yrs,8yrs, what? I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Obama will not announce himself a member of the Muslim faith while president of the U.S. :))
#271

On August 26th, 2008 at 8:03 pm, Misscheryl said:

Bear1909 - you’re my hero! (I’d do that little winkie face thing here if only I knew how). Carry on as I do like reading your posts.
#272

On August 26th, 2008 at 8:11 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

Bemusedlib

The John Kerry candidacy was irreperably harmed by lies broadcast by Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.

I didn’t agree with the attacks against Kerry’s war record, and any offense against someone’s reputation requires restitution, but he and his liberal allies drew first blood their with his little false testimony before Congress. Moral values take a distant second seat to Kerry and the Democratic Party in general.

The Obama campaign, having learned from that expoerience, is trying to stop the spread of another round of lies — that he’s best buddies with Bill Ayers.

Best buddies, no. In fact, not even Sean Hannity would go that far, but associations, yes.

It’s a sleazy little add, superimposing Obama atop pictures of a bombing that took place 40 years ago, by somebody who a) is a passing acquaintance and b) is free and legal.

A) The only reason Obama isn’t down even more in the polls are because the MSM hides information like this. Had they reported on it, maybe you’d have Clinton as the nominee. Now pending a major McCain mistake, the democrats have lost the White House.

B) OJ Simpson is also “free and legal”.

Support for free speech doesn’t mean allowing people to broadcast character assassinations so cheap even Fox news wouldn’t run it.

Does that just apply to Obama? Because I don’t even the MSM media anymore because of character attacks on Rudy Guilani’s 16-year-old daughter and Bill O’Reilly.

Seems to me, Bemused, it’s not the principle of the matter, and it’s wrong only if it pertains to liberals.

Funny how concerned you are about First Amendment rights when some propagandist may not get his lies on another whack-job’s network — please note that Sinclaire is the kind of First Amendment absolutist who ordered their station not to broadcast John Kerry’s ads — but when the New York Times reveals massive violation of American’s constitutional you clam up.

In case you haven’t noticed, this is a conservative blog. Whining about it won’t help.

The New York Times isn’t interested in the Constitution or even money. It’s interested in imposing it’s secular values on everyone else by spinning stories to favor hard-line liberals like Obama.

And I haven’t seen anyone clam up over the Times, anyways. The paper is loaded with bias it’s like the spin cycle of a washing machine.

My advice is to not waste your time reading it.

Garbage, to say the least, like just about every other metro paper.
#273

On August 26th, 2008 at 8:49 pm, chapoutier said:

A) The only reason Obama isn’t down even more in the polls are because the MSM hides information like this. Had they reported on it, maybe you’d have Clinton as the nominee. Now pending a major McCain mistake, the democrats have lost the White House.

I am sorry, maybe you weren’t paying much attention to the Democratic primaries, but this was most definitely brought up.
#274

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:01 pm, rocksandbroncs said:

One of the main resaons for MM’s post here is - in her own words - “Here is the ad Barack Obama doesn’t want you to see. Pass it on.” and “Spread the ad far and wide.” Those who have trackedback here are doing their part and I just thought we readers could maybe help disseminate the truth.

Since Wikipedia is infested with liberalist bias and Y! Buzz thinks blogs from HuffPo are news, I Y! Buzzed the only place online other than here that I could find that had the video embedded with an article. Maybe we can help Y! Buzz maintain at least a semblance of objectivity.

One click to get to the Buzz search page and one more to Buzz it up. And since we outnumber the libs here we have an advantage in numbers and can outclick them. Maybe through our efforts we can sway a ‘moderate’ into doing the right thing.

After the bullying MM went through yesterday, the least we can do is give her an assist.
#275

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:09 pm, joromima said:

Michelle says the Obama campaign

is applying Chicago-style mafia tactics

which equates to asking the feds to investigate ….
asking advertisers to pull their support…
sending lots of emails to the stations in protest….

wow - those Chicago mobsters could really get nasty!!!!?
#276

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:15 pm, rplatt said:

Obama has deployed his “brown shirts” and is attempting to quell both free speech and our political freedoms. The Democratic Party is exhibiting fascist behavior and people had better wake up and put an end to this before it’s too late. The Republic is in serious trouble.
#277

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:15 pm, Mojave Mark said:

Bill Ayers, Bill Clinton. What’s next? What are we dealing with here people???
#278

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:20 pm, atheling said:

englishqueen:

That video of Obama wanting to disarm America should be shown to every voter.

I note that mistressjustice ignored it. How honest.
#279

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:32 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

mistressjustice (aka “boots”)said:

Disarm [American]? Get serious, will you.

Get ready to eat dirt sweetheart:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.

Seems pretty serious to me boots. Dontcha’ think sweet hips?
#280

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:45 pm, Eyas said:

Is the Leftist/Communist attempt to shut down dissent surprising to anyone?

Besides, Ayers,Schmayers, who cares? Half the country is ready to vote for Obama despite the fact that he is a Communist. Why worry about his associates and associations?
The same people would still vote for Obama if he were best friends with Osama bin Laden …

Given the way leftists (un)think, a close tie to ANY enemy of the United States would probably give him a boost in the polls.

Neither Obama, nor Ayers, is the problem. The problem is that half of this country has already been fully indoctrinated/brainwashed by Communism and Anti-Americanism. To the point that they’re willing to vote for a Communist like Obama regardless of his associations with other America-hating Leftists.
#281

On August 26th, 2008 at 9:52 pm, heroyalwhyness said:

Fighting back against Obama’s thugs is going to get very very interesting -

Biden has deep ties to Rezko accomplice

No matter what help Barack Obama might get from Sen. Joseph Biden, his newly named vice presidential running mate won’t give Obama much cover on the Tony Rezko front.

and

Iraqi Billionaire Threatens Reporters Investigating Rezko Affair

Why aren’t the American media investigating the role of British billionaire businessman Nadhmi Auchi in supplying loans to Barack Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko?
#282

On August 26th, 2008 at 10:24 pm, rocketman said:

A man’s character is indicated by his associates, friends, and actions. How many other well known politicians / statesmen have friends / associates like Pastor Wright, Rezko, Ayers / Dorn, Acorn, etc? Obama is the only one I know of with such a collection of losers.

Ayers and Dorn should be doing life in a Supermax prison–or pushing up daisys for their bombings. How many innocent persons were crippled / maimed / blinded / killed by them? What’s a few bombs among friends?

John Bibb
#283

On August 26th, 2008 at 10:47 pm, almiller said:

Swift boating is truth telling in an inconvenient way.

This ad is all softballs but true to the last word.
#284

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:12 pm, dakine said:

Let’s keep it real. All things being the same, if Sen. Kerry was a conservative and the liberals were doing the “swiftboating”, most of you would be defending the guy to the death.

bear1909 out, you appear to be talking to yourself bra. Too clever by half my man.

RedPill, maybe stick to your own blog. The whole communist around every corner, extremist religious thing is kind of creeping me out.
#285

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:25 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:12 pm, dakine said:

You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
#286

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:27 pm, JHSII said:

Let’s be honest:

To “SwiftBoat” someone is to tell the truth about them.

There. Now that we have that as a baseline, we can continue the conversation.
#287

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:31 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

dakine, I guess it’s just “coincidence” that Jason has found so many Marxists to interview…

…just “coincidence” that you see “Che” shirts and Che’s image on a Cuban flag in an Obama campaign office.

Just “coincidence” that Putin is using oil money to rebuild Russia and bring it back to it’s Cold War days.

Just “coincidence” that Obama said “57 states“.

Just “coincidence” that we continue to catch both Chinese and Russian spies in our country.

You want to know what creeps me out?

This true story.

Wake up, Neo…
#288

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:36 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

JHSII,
Yes, and every time the liberal media uses “swiftboat” in a deaming way, they are dishoring these very honorable men.
#289

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:39 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

~~deaming~~ demeaning
#290

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:51 pm, Member-VRWC said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 2:06 pm, BemusedLib said:
The John Kerry candidacy was irreperably harmed by lies broadcast by ~~Swiftboat Veterans for Truth~~John Kerry.

Fixed it for ya, dipstick.

The story of the Magic Hat and Christmas in Cambodia ring any bells for you?
#291

On August 26th, 2008 at 11:55 pm, Jim M. said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm, mistressjustice said:
On August 26th, 2008 at 5:35 pm,mistressjustice said:
For the record Obama as stated unequivically numerous times that Iran can’t have nuclear weapons.

Really? Didn’t he also say that Iran was a tiny country and not a threat? And let’s put aside the fact that he may have uttered a stattement on the flip or the flop side that iran could not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. And let’s also put aside the fact that he has offered zero guidance as to how he intends to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

Why would he pick a running mate who is sympathetic to Iran? So much so that he stated we could not prevent iran from going nuclear, as it fulfilled their “emotional needs”. Why would he pick a running mate whose idea of a response to 9/11 was to give Iran $200 million to show there were no hard feelings? Why would he pick a running mate that has taken large campaign contributions from pro-Iranian regime groups?

With “Jihad Joe” at his side, I am certain the mullahs are quaking in their pointy shoes.
#292

On August 27th, 2008 at 12:26 am, oldbuckaroo said:

The ONLY difference between terrorist bomber William Ayres and terrorist bomber Timothy McVeigh is the body count, and a lethal injection.
#293

On August 27th, 2008 at 1:00 am, dakine said:

JHSII, nothing in your last post refutes my point. Truth or not, if Kerry was a conservative, you’d be defending him. You’re a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest.

RedPill, not much difference between your ilk and a nutjob like Alex Jones. You’re spending too much time knocking around in your head. Your blog is ridiculous and scary at the same time.
#294

On August 27th, 2008 at 1:41 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

dakine,
Those who can’t handle the truth…
try to silence those who speak it.
#295

On August 27th, 2008 at 1:50 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

Communist activists such as Obama associate and terrorist William Ayers (quoted in the September 11, 2001 New York Times as saying, ”I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough”) think the United States is a great country for completely different reasons than we do…Dancing on a US flag, saying, “Guilty as sin, free as a bird, it’s a great country”. The only reason that man is free is because another Communist intentionally botched the case against him. (That would be the same Communist who played a major role in bringing down President Nixon.)
#296

On August 27th, 2008 at 2:16 am, fluffy said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 4:48 pm, chapoutier said:

So, whenever a politcian wants an ad pulled, the freedom of speech is suspended.
How exactly is freedom of speech suspended? Obama is not the government

Obama not the government? He is a United States Senator.

This says everything anyone needs to know about your positions, elusive as they are.
#297

On August 27th, 2008 at 9:18 am, chapoutier said:

Obama not the government? He is a United States Senator.

He is an employee of the government, as are hundreds of thousands of others. And is any of what he is doing being done in his capacity as Senator or is it being done in his capacity as a presidential candidate?
#298

On August 27th, 2008 at 9:44 am, DBNinKY said:

He is an employee of the government, as are hundreds of thousands of others.

You are above this type of obfuscation; even middle school students would not equate the influence and deference shown a U S Senator, vested with the power and authority inherent to the office, with that of the guys and gals who run their local post office or sweep the Capitol steps.

And is any of what he is doing being done in his capacity as Senator or is it being done in his capacity as a presidential candidate?

To voters Ma and Pa Simth out in middle America, there’s no difference; the fact that they know he is doing this is enough to turn them off even more to him and the Democrats.
#299

On August 27th, 2008 at 7:04 pm, corkie said:

On August 26th, 2008 at 7:12 pm, neocon527 said:

Why refer to them as Macho Man remarks? Or that the protests were what he had “wrought?” I mean, presumably, a strike on Pakistan to thwart a terrorist plot or nab Osama Bin Laden, would be something Michelle would agree with? No? I mean, are we so partisan that even when we agree with something the opposition says, we have to mock it for being similar to something we would say?

Let me try real hard to explain this to you.

The point isn’t that anyone here disagreed with that single statement Obama made about Pakistan. The point is that he had been bashing and bashing and bashing all aggressive policies prior to ever offering any policy ideas of his own. When forced to make a policy statement during the debate, he conveyed a very aggressive idea which doesn’t fit with his articulated approach to foreign policy.

His statement was a joke and did not represent any change.

Let me use an analogy. Imagine there are two roads, road A and road B, which lead to the same destination. Road A is flat and smooth but greater distance. Road B is hilly and rocky but shorter distance. Well, you would never choose Road A, and then decide to drive a Hummer. And you would never choose Road B, and then decide to drive a sports car.

Well, Obama had been articulating a softer approach to foreign policy. While most conservatives understand this approach and it’s advantages (although they might disagree that it’s better than a tougher approach) they certainly don’t understand the decision to suddenly make some tough statement about bombing Pakistan simply because some debate moderator forced you into a corner.

Many believe that he was forcing himself to show some bravado regarding an issue he felt was safe.

Obama was mocked by many. They would understand if someone with a tough foreign policy triggered irrational riots in the streets - but it’s certainly not understandable for someone with a softer, passive foreign policy to trigger irrational riots in the street.

This leads into the real discussion. It’s much easier to criticize the leader than to actually lead - just ask the Democrats in Congress since 2006. This out-of-place “macho” remark was a good example of his lack of leadership experience.

I hope this helps both you and mistressjustice