WP: Obama and Friends: Judge Not?

[TuckahoeSkin]

He vocally supported the first Iraq War in '91, and was pretty influential in getting other Democrats to vote for it.

For example, how the Clinton/Gore Administration prosecuted the war after the WTC Bombings? :doh: How about lobbing missiles at empty tents? :doh: Not taking Osama from the Sudanese when he was offered up to us? :doh: Come on now.

[DjTj]

For example, how the Clinton/Gore Administration prosecuted the war after the WTC Bombings? :doh: How about lobbing missiles at empty tents? :doh: Not taking Osama from the Sudanese when he was offered up to us? :doh: Come on now.

Clinton was in charge then. Gore was always more of a hawk than Clinton. And besides, even Jimmy Carter would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. There weren't really a lot of choices then. Bush screwed up by trying to do too much with too little planning. Gore wouldn't have made that mistake, and McCain certainly would not have.

[Heisenberg]

And Hitler was a jew...

As far as white folks in that congregation, there are self-hating people of all stripes all over the world that do things that don't really make much sense. Just because you see white folks sitting in those pews doesn't mean that Wright isn't racist. He is. If you think otherwise, you're deluding yourself.

Your right, that's the only valid explaination. These white congregation members MUST have been self-hating.

Give me a break.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Clinton was in charge then. Gore was always more of a hawk than Clinton. And besides, even Jimmy Carter would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. There weren't really a lot of choices then. Bush screwed up by trying to do too much with too little planning. Gore wouldn't have made that mistake, and McCain certainly would not have.

Funny quote by Gore back in the mid 90s when in the Clinton White House

Bill Clinton was talking to his legal counsel, unsure of whether or not capturing a certain person would violate some sort of international law

Clinton and his counsel consult Gore

Gore's response "Of course we grab him. In secret. He is a terrorist"

I wish I could attribute that quote off the top of my head but I can't at the moment. I'll have to find the source of it

[scruffylookin]

Clinton was in charge then. Gore was always more of a hawk than Clinton. And besides, even Jimmy Carter would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. There weren't really a lot of choices then. Bush screwed up by trying to do too much with too little planning. Gore wouldn't have made that mistake, and McCain certainly would not have.

Don't bother arguing it's not worth it.

First off, if Gore had been in office. I'm not so sure 9/11 happens. No way he would have ignored the intelligence reports like Bush did. No way would he have been on vacation for a month like Bush was.

But if it did happen, of course he would have gone after Bin Laden and those responsible in Afghanistan.

What he would not have done is get us into a needless war in Iraq that has only fed the hate for us around the world. He would not have squandered the universal goodwill the world had for us after we were attacked.

The dirty little secret that the right doesn't like to talk about is how the Clinton Administration did a great job in protecting us from the planned terrorist attacks in 2000.

9/11 was not the first attempt to hit us on our home soil with something big.

As for the subject of this thread.

I'm waiting to see proof that Ayers and Obama were friends. They sat on a board together, lived in the same neighborhood and Ayers hosted a kickoff to Obama's political career. Fine, PROVE that Obama knew about Ayers' history, that he supported it or that they were friends.

But beyond that, I guess every person who is friends with Ayers is a terrorist sympathizer? Is that how it works? Is every student who goes to him as an adviser also a sympathizer? Should they never be able to seek public office because he taught them and advised them? Should they be tarred and feathered too?

If so, I still would love to hear exactly why the same people who think this Ayers thing is a serious point of discussion as to "who is Barack Obama", don't get all worked up over the fact that Palin's husband was a secessionist and that she told that group THIS YEAR to "keep up the good work"?

Ayers, even if a friend, was a radical 45 years ago. Palin and her husband (alot closer than just a friend) are currently radicals.

[ZoEd]

Well, we can at least talk about what our dads did ...

I know you highly value military service, and Gore's service, while not particularly noteworthy, was more significant than Bush's. He volunteered for the army, went through basic training, and served in Vietnam in an Engineering Brigade.

He vocally supported the first Iraq War in '91, and was pretty influential in getting other Democrats to vote for it.

I don't know if a Gore administration would have been dramatically better in all aspects, but he certainly would have prosecuted the War on Terror aggressively, and I think we would be much further along with alternative energy. It's just hard to imagine everything turning out as badly as it has for Bush.

I think the best candidate for the past eight years would really have been John McCain, who would have gone into Afghanistan with large numbers and would not have stopped until the job was done. He would not have invaded Iraq until he could get the troop numbers he would have wanted. McCain would have been more careful about torture and civil liberties issues than anyone. He did eventually influence the administration to support the surge and to back off a little bit on torture, but now in 2008, we have new problems, and McCain is the wrong President to clean up Bush's mess.

It's funny how history seems to place people in the wrong place at the wrong times...

Damn it TJ, there you go making sense again.

Except for Gore of course.

My problem with Gore was I never saw him as anything more than a Clinton puppet. Clinton allowed Saddam to thumb his nose at us and the sanctions for way to long and never really did anything to stop him. Sure we'd launch strikes into Iraq when they'd violate the no fly zone but that was about the extent of it. They, Clinton/Gore, allowed the UN to sit by and do absolutely nothing as well. Why didn't they have the balls to force the UN into doing something, anything?

Saddam was a mess that needed to be cleaned up and although he probably could and should have waited IMO it was a necessary evil. Bush had to have a head on a platter to show the world that we weren't F'ing around and Saddam was an easy target. I don't think the world as a whole imagined that it would turn into the fiasco that it has been for the past almost 6 years. I can't say for sure but I just don't see Gore as a guy having enough balls to do the ugly things envolved with war.

I will say this though, I believe from the bottom of my heart that he would have done a much, much better job with Katrina and the Gulf Coast. :applause:

Yes, your are absolutely right; I too think McCain would have been a better POTUS post 9/11. Hind sight is 20/20 though and we have the luxury of seeing that now. We can coulda, shoulda, woulda all day long.

[Prosperity]

Well it shows both how disciplined they are, and how slow they are to adjust.

I think they had this planned since the Convention to start talking about Ayers and Rev. Wright in October. But they didn't expect the stock market crash, and they did not have a plan B. So now they're stuck with this strategy of talking about these trivial things when there are much more serious issues that America wants to hear about.

The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

that's some good thinking dj, makes sense

I wonder if these hacks wrote their smears ahead of time too

[ZoEd]

I'm waiting to see proof that Ayers and Obama were friends. They sat on a board together, lived in the same neighborhood and Ayers hosted a kickoff to Obama's political career. Fine, PROVE that Obama knew about Ayers' history, that he supported it or that they were friends.

But beyond that, I guess every person who is friends with Ayers is a terrorist sympathizer? Is that how it works? Is every student who goes to him as an adviser also a sympathizer? Should they never be able to seek public office because he taught them and advised them? Should they be tarred and feathered too?

Come on dude, seriously. Obamba didn't know who Ayers was?:doh:

So you pretty much just called the man you support an idiot who lives under a rock.

Sat on a board together, lived in the same neighborhood and didn't know who he was. :applause: It's your story, you tell it how ever you want.

My point has never been that Obama himself is a sympathizer. My only allegation has been that he has made a bed and slept with some pretty unscrupulus fellows and I'm a firm believer if you sleep with dogs you get fleas. I just wonder how people can so easily write off these associations without even batting an eye.

His supporters keep spewing answers like yours when asked about it. Like I said earlier in this thread, if it were your kids hanging around with folks like Obama's been hanging around you'd be okay with that? Come on, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..................

[BigMike619]

Come on dude, seriously. Obamba didn't know who Ayers was?:doh:

So you pretty much just called the man you support an idiot who lives under a rock.

Sat on a board together, lived in the same neighborhood and didn't know who he was. :applause: It's your story, you tell it how ever you want.

My point has never been that Obama himself is a sympathizer. My only allegation has been that he has made a bed and slept with some pretty unscrupulus fellows and I'm a firm believer if you sleep with dogs you get fleas. I just wonder how people can so easily write off these associations without even batting an eye.

His supporters keep spewing answers like yours when asked about it. Like I said earlier in this thread, if it were your kids hanging around with folks like Obama's been hanging around you'd be okay with that? Come on, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..................

this is what I was trying to say all day yesterday. maybe you have said it better then i can but i was blasted for daring to speak out against obama. they said i called him a racist and a terrorist because i questioned who his partners/assocaiates were.

[JimboDaMan]

this is what I was trying to say all day yesterday. maybe you have said it better then i can but i was blasted for daring to speak out against obama. they said i called him a racist and a terrorist because i questioned who his partners/assocaiates were.

The problem is in the inconsistency. McCain "palled around" much more with Keating than Obama did with Ayers, yet you are little troubled by this association. Palin is very closely linked to a seditious organization whose leaders have made statements every bit as bad Rev Wright, but I don't find the outrage there.

[BigMike619]

The problem is in the inconsistency. McCain "palled around" much more with Keating than Obama did with Ayers, yet you are little troubled by this association. Palin is very closely linked to a seditious organization whose leaders have made statements every bit as bad Rev Wright, but I don't find the outrage there.

20 years with wright

10 years with ayers.

not that long? thats over 2 decades of associating with people who are known to say things against white people and this country. you can try to drag mccain down in to it as much as you want but that just means you have to accept that obama has shady tendencies as well.

[IHOPSkins]

.... Gore was always more of a hawk than Clinton.....

Maybe....But

Gore would have caved on Domestic Surveilance

I think that is a big reason we have not been attacked since 9/11 :2cents:

[JimboDaMan]

20 years with wright

10 years with ayers.

not that long? thats over 2 decades of associating with people who are known to say things against white people and this country. you can try to drag mccain down in to it as much as you want but that just means you have to accept that obama has shady tendencies as well.

Not at all, I see nothing game-changing about any of these things. I'm quite consistent, and you are not.

[BigMike619]

Not at all, I see nothing game-changing about any of these things. I'm quite consistent, and you are not.

is that a "i know you are but what am i?" kind of response or what?

yeah man, you are so much more consistent then me.

[JimboDaMan]

is that a "i know you are but what am i?" kind of response or what?

yeah man, you are so much more consistent then me.

You've been complaining that nobody takes your views on Obama's associations the same way you do. I pointed out that I take Obama's associations the same way I - and you - take McCain and Palin's associations. So you roll your eyes.

[BigMike619]

You've been complaining that nobody takes your views on Obama's associations the same way you do. I pointed out that I take Obama's associations the same way I - and you - take McCain and Palin's associations. So you roll your eyes.

and in all of that comparing yourself to doing things how i do them; how does that make you consistent and me not? sounds like you are doing the EXACT same thing as me and just tried to prove it with this statement.

[JimboDaMan]

and in all of that comparing yourself to doing things how i do them; how does that make you consistent and me not? sounds like you are doing the EXACT same thing as me and just tried to prove it with this statement.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The way I see it, I don't find anything disqualifying about Obama, McCain, or Palin's associations (Biden too, for that matter). You seem to think some are terrible and others no big deal. To me, that seems inconsistent on your part. However, I've been known to be wrong in the past and might well be wrong now.

[BigMike619]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The way I see it, I don't find anything disqualifying about Obama, McCain, or Palin's associations (Biden too, for that matter). You seem to think some are terrible and others no big deal. To me, that seems inconsistent on your part. However, I've been known to be wrong in the past and might well be wrong now.

I agree to disagree with you then.

[IHOPSkins]

You seem to think some are terrible and others no big deal. ....

The variables of how big the deal is are.......

Indirect;

Length of Involvement (reflects likemindedness)

Morality of the one involved with (reflects acceptance of behavior)

Direct;

Effect on candidate

Feel free to add to this list

[ZoEd]

The problem is in the inconsistency. McCain "palled around" much more with Keating than Obama did with Ayers, yet you are little troubled by this association. Palin is very closely linked to a seditious organization whose leaders have made statements every bit as bad Rev Wright, but I don't find the outrage there.

McCain has a track record for politics and has been at this for a very long time. By now is objectives are transparent. Can you say the same about Obama? He's a virtual unknown, but we do know should send up redflags but of course it doesn't because people are sick of Bush.

[Bang]

At the risk of busting my balls while I straddle this fence..

In the 60s we saw radical violent subversive and revolutionary groups try to force their way into the political process.

In the 70s we lost all innocence that was left in discovering just how corruptable and shifty our government had become.

In the 80s greed was the word of the day, and everyone who could did everything they could to strike it rich, even if it meant creating junk bonds that fleeced investors, or swindling and cheating and stealing from everyone that walked by.

In the 90s they happily laid down the guidelines to legalize and legitimize bribery in the form of special interest lobbying. (We always knew it went on, and in the 90s they made it cuddly and acceptable.) We plastered stories of the President's dick all over the National enquirer and cheerfully destroyed whatever respectability the office had left.

In the 00s we've decided that no mud should ever be left unslung, no lie can be too big, and we've proceeded to willingly separate ourselves and divide our country. The internet has allowed our candidates to associate without association with the worst of the bunch when it comes to political hackery, and depending on which side it is depends on how we view this blatant manipulation of our process and people.

In summary... to think that in this day and age you're going to find ANY politician who has not had an association with seriously shady characters is a friggin' PIPE DREAM.

Ayers, Keating, it doesn't matter.

Poiliticians are crooked. They will lay down with dogs to gain what they want. We know this. And to pretend that one side is worse than the other is ludicrous. Just take our current quad of candidates. Every one of them has skeletons, every one of them has questionable associations or worse. And yet we actually waste time arguing over which one of them is less covered in the muck of what our process has become?

You're NEVER going to find Paul Pureheart. He's dead. He doesn't exist anymore, and he's not coming back. We can gloss over our particular candidate's sleazy dealings, but it's still there. It's like waxing bird **** into the hood of your car.

All it does is make the **** shine.

~Bang

[BAFGA]

But, but, but..... Your candidate is more crooked than my candidate.

[IHOPSkins]

......In summary... to think that in this day and age you're going to find ANY politician who has not had an association with seriously shady characters is a friggin' PIPE DREAM.

Ayers, Keating, ......

Assuming you are correct...We can still place Value on these associations and compare

An Unrepentant Domestic Terrorist carries a lot of weight

So does a Racist Minister

[ZoEd]

At the risk of busting my balls while I straddle this fence..

In the 60s we saw radical violent subversive and revolutionary groups try to force their way into the political process.

In the 70s we lost all innocence that was left in discovering just how corruptable and shifty our government had become.

In the 80s greed was the word of the day, and everyone who could did everything they could to strike it rich, even if it meant creating junk bonds that fleeced investors, or swindling and cheating and stealing from everyone that walked by.

In the 90s they happily laid down the guidelines to legalize and legitimize bribery in the form of special interest lobbying. (We always knew it went on, and in the 90s they made it cuddly and acceptable.) We plastered stories of the President's dick all over the National enquirer and cheerfully destroyed whatever respectability the office had left.

In the 00s we've decided that no mud should ever be left unslung, no lie can be too big, and we've proceeded to willingly separate ourselves and divide our country. The internet has allowed our candidates to associate without association with the worst of the bunch when it comes to political hackery, and depending on which side it is depends on how we view this blatant manipulation of our process and people.

In summary... to think that in this day and age you're going to find ANY politician who has not had an association with seriously shady characters is a friggin' PIPE DREAM.

Ayers, Keating, it doesn't matter.

Poiliticians are crooked. They will lay down with dogs to gain what they want. We know this. And to pretend that one side is worse than the other is ludicrous. Just take our current quad of candidates. Every one of them has skeletons, every one of them has questionable associations or worse. And yet we actually waste time arguing over which one of them is less covered in the muck of what our process has become?

You're NEVER going to find Paul Pureheart. He's dead. He doesn't exist anymore, and he's not coming back. We can gloss over our particular candidate's sleazy dealings, but it's still there. It's like waxing bird **** into the hood of your car.

All it does is make the **** shine.

~Bang

This is why I hate politicians.

I'm not voting for McCain or Obama. I'm not defending McCain unless you ask me who's better suited at being CIC of my military. When it comes to the security of our nation I feel McCain is the only candidate with the balls to make a tough call.

My heartburn is with the Obama supporters who choose to just flat out ignore or brush off his associations and act as if Obama is the second coming of Jesus Christ. At least acknowledge the fact they guy has some pretty damn shady dealings going on. At least acknowledge that he's gotten where he's at because of these associations and this may have a huge impact on the future of our country. That's all I'm asking.

Quit putting him on a pedestal and call the ugly baby ugly for cripes sake!

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

This is why I hate politicians.

I'm not voting for McCain or Obama. I'm not defending McCain unless you ask me who's better suited at being CIC of my military. When it comes to the security of our nation I feel McCain is the only candidate with the balls to make a tough call.

My heartburn is with the Obama supporters who choose to just flat out ignore or brush off his associations and act as if Obama is the second coming of Jesus Christ. At least acknowledge the fact they guy has some pretty damn shady dealings going on. At least acknowledge that he's gotten where he's at because of these associations and this may have a huge impact on the future of our country. That's all I'm asking.

Quit putting him on a pedestal and call the ugly baby ugly for cripes sake!

So what you're asking is for us (Obama supporters) to agree with you. And if we don't we are "drinking" the Obama Kool-Aid.