Is Barack Obama A Terrorist?

traderfjp wrote:McCain knows how to stir the pot.

So maybe he has a future as a cook at McDonald's?

McCain was practically at the bottom of his class, He has stated that he doesn't know how to turn on his laptop and that he doesn't get it. This is the man who said Chelsea Clinton is ugly and Janet Reno is her father. He is mean and now he is making outrageous slurs against Obama. He started to tell lies that Obama is running with terrorists, etc. It got so bad that at rallys his supporters are yelling out crazy talk like kill him. It became so bad that Mccain announced at his own rally that if Obama becomes president that his supporters have nothing to be afraid of and that Obama is a descent guy. I saw the sound byte on the news.

Obama is not a terrorist. There may be some who think he is a terrorist sympathizer, I am not one of them. He does not condone terrorism and thus is not sympathetic to terrorism. But I do think he has sympathies for some of the radical left politics that underpin what Ayers did and what Ayers stands for today. And it is plainly obvious he felt comfortable allying with and working with Ayers, a non-reformed, non-repentant terrorist who to this day advocates for radical, revolutionary change, says he didn't do enough bombing in his youth, and has expressed great affinity for Chavez, Castro, and other modern communist revolutionaries. Obama's judgement in making this alliance was completely wrong by any sane, reasonable standard. In making that choice, the comfort he had in that alliance, and the need to know the reasons for it all call into question Obama's character. The question of where Ayers's politics and Obama's politics are sympatico and where they diverge is rational and most certainly relevant.

From this alliance and the work they did together is raised very serious concerns about what his political philosophies are, particularly as they relate to education policy. Also of concern are his positioning on capitalism vs command economies, radicalization of the youth, his understanding of this country, it's history and his vision for this country and it's place in the world, etc. His other alliances and associations (Wright, Phleger and the Trinity Church; his praise of Farrakahn and his praise -- indeed, deification -- of Obama; Rezko and possibly the Giannoulias family; etc.) also call Obama into question on these and other issues.

Obama knew Ayers was a terrorist, knew of his radical left philosophies on education, economics, politics and his very unfavorable view of this country in general. Ayers was and is not some closet case hiding his past or his political positions. He and his wife have been a nationally known figures for decades. He's written dozens of books proclaiming his radical leftist philosophies and detailing his traitorous acts through the 60's, 70's and (in his wife's case) the 80's, and his still present embrace and glorification of that past. Local and national media appearances. Speeches, private and public, academic and personal. Obama knew this stuff, and he allied with him anyway. He had, until the last couple days, been trying to say he didn't really know any of this or that he had minimal contact and involvement with Ayers. Now he's saying that he thought Ayers was rehabilitated, giving the lie to his past claims of ignorance of who Ayers was, what he had done, and what he was about. But this too, like all his other sidestepping excuses and rationales, strains the limits of rational belief and adds yet another layer of self-contradiction to his tale on this issue.

This was not like Kootch's situation where he did not know what was going on or who the person was. Obama knew. Everyone in Chicago politics knows. The University of Chicago, no doubt, hired him precisely because of his checkered past and his unrepentant attitude about it, probably considered it enlightening to have someone with his background of sedition and traitorous acts against the country on the staff. But I digress... Obama knew, and he allied with Ayers anyway, to advance his private and public career.

Kootch, after you found out about this pedophile co-worker, did you so much as sit down at the same table with him anymore? Would you ally yourself with him by choice? Regardless of who he worked for, what greater levels of political access he might open for you, or how "rehabilitated" you thought he was? Particularly if you were an ambitious politician? If you did, would you expect to be given a pass for it if you managed to become a Presidential nominee, much less a candidate for the local school board?

And again, this isn't just about the paling around with terrorists angle, though that is bad enough in and of itself. Ayers is a self-described radical leftist, a "small 'c' communist". His theories on juvenile justice, primary education, the role of raising political consciousness and "questioning authority" in the education of youth, the role of education in achieving the revolution he desires and advocates for to this day.... Obama allied himself with Ayers specifically on this ground when it came to the Chicago Annenberg Challenege. And do not throw out the straw man argument that Annenberg is a conservative or that there were conservatives on this board too or whatever else is being peddled these days to distract and sidestep a direct answer. Where the money came from is not at issue. Who else was on the board is not at issue. What is at issue is how Obama chose to spend the money Ayers managed to get for this project, why he chose to spend it in those ways, and what aspects of Ayers's radical leftist philosophies on education and "the revolution" Obama himself subscribes to.

Raising these questions is important because very little about what makes Obama tick has been exposed in this election process. What has been exposed has been systematically dismissed by hypnotized and utterly supportive media. Only when pressed to look into it, as a CYA exercise, do they do so, and then they accept the Obama party line as gospel and declare it "a trumped up" non issue.

Very little time has been devoted to this "meta" stuff in the debates. The two questions that got closest were about if Health Care is a responsibility or a right and if the candidate would militarily defend Israel if attacked by Iran. We know economic proposals, we know health care proposals, we know positions and intent on Iraq and Afghanistan, but precious little else. We have a very ambiguous picture of his character, his motivations, and his philosophies. These are very important in choosing a leader, most especially the President. They become even more important when we realize he'll very likely, if elected, have a filibuster proof democrat majority in congress and will be the leader of that party.

What does he stand for? Not in the flowerly speech making terms that only mean something if you believe the person saying them, but in terms of verifiable record, in terms of past expressions, in terms of, yes, past alliances and associations and who he chose as partners on his way up the political food chain. These things inform us as to his ideals, his mission, and thus whom he is likely to surround himself with. They drive how he will handle the post-economic crisis phase (say the last 3.5 years) of his term if he's elected. They drive how he will deal with those things we don't expect and can't even know to ask him about now.

We haven't even touched social policy or issues, constitutional interpretation, beliefs on presidential authority vs legislative vs judicial, etc. There is a vast under-examined aspect to Obama that needs to be laid bare for the country to effectively and knowingly make their decision on Nov 4. I welcome this same exposure of McCain, though I think it is a little less pressing a need since he has such a long history and record and set of national media exposures. Many people know him through this long national public history. However, the record hasn't been exposed much in the debates or the last couple of month of discourse and that means there are many people who either don't know it or have an incorrect knowledge of it, so I welcome and advocate for it for both Obama and McCain in the following weeks, particularly at this last debate.

There is more to this election and this choice for President than "fixing" the economic crisis and whether or not to leave Iraq and how to effectively reengage on Afghanistan. These things have gotten very little attention in the last couple/few months and it is vital for it to be heard and exposed in order for the public to make informed consent in their votes.

Paul: Are u sure you weren't a journalist in another life? Your essay on the this topic is well written. I agree that the debates are plastic in nature with each candidate giving their pat speeches. The one line that I did like was when Obama said that Bush had a tremendous opportunity to rally this country after 911 and could only ask the country to go out and shop. I'd like to believe that Obama will rally this country and inspire our youth to do great feats but talk is so very cheap. I know this is a radical idea but I would LOVE if we could strap a lie detector on each candidate and ask them a series of questions. It'll be interesting to see if McCain uses the phrase, "my friends" in the last debate.

I need to get me a smiley of a duck.

pvolcko wrote:Obama is not a terrorist. There may be some who think he is a terrorist sympathizer, I am not one of them. He does not condone terrorism and thus is not sympathetic to terrorism.

Very well written post Paul & I'm sure you'll be surprised that I agree with some of your points. For anyone to try to argue that the Junior Senator from Illinois favors flying airliners into buildings & wants to be elected President to carry out attacks against this county is sheer lunacy & the desperate flailings of a failed Presidential campaign grabbing at floating flotsam as their ship goes down. The very injection of the word "Terrorist" (as in Sarah Palin's desperate, un-American & dangerous lie that "Sen. Obama pals around with terrorists") conveys a very different meaning today (after 9/11) than it did a generation ago in the 1960o's when Ayers was plotting to blow up federal buildings as part of the "Weathermen." I have no intention to justify what Ayers was doing, but the very fact that we are talking about him is exactly what the McCain camp wants us to be talking about, & is the same "Watch this hand" BS that the American voter has been subjected to for the last 8 years. Don't talk about the war in Iraq & Afghanistan, or the economy, or energy costs & how to get independent from middle eastern oil.....No.....Lets keep the idiot voter busy watching investigations of Steroid use in baseball....or whether or not Terry Schiavo should be allowed to die! (a private family matter that the US Government never had any business being involved in & was cynically used to deflect our attention) John McCain's intention is to distract us from the very real issues that effect all Americans on a daily basis, & which a man who owns 7 homes & 13 cars has no way of relating too.
I'm not a believer in "guilt by association" &, in this case "Guilt by who lives near you" ....or ....in who's living room you once sat in. If I was, I'm sure that John McCain roomed next to some pretty unsavory guys on board ship in the Navy or perhaps there is a pedophile who lives a block away from one of McCain's seven houses..... Is that what we want to be looking at?......Who lives near a candidate & who a candidate may have had a casual relationship on a charitable board?

What the American people face today is what should be talked about by candidates for the Presidency, not these side issues. I could care less about anything other than what he candidate himself/herself says & believes, not what his/her neighbor does.
I applaud you Paul for not buying into the literal intention to somehow paint Obama as a real danger to America, an ENEMY who needs to be feared & perhaps jailed or worse!

It is perfectly fine to disagree about the judgment of a political candidate, & many of Obama's judgment calls can & should be debated & dissected....BUT....You must do the same thing in regards to John McCain in order to be bhonest with yourself.

Was Obama's relationship with some unsavory characters poor judgment?......Yes

Was McCain's choice of an unqualified VP running mate poor judgment?......Yes

Which is worse is up to he voters to decide on 11/4.



It is up to he voter to make the final decision on these things, & my point is that "guilt by association" is a poor reason to base one's vote on. Look at the latest polls.........It is not working.

Devil505 wrote: I am almost 62 years old & cant remember any such hatred & vitriol being leveled against a political foe in my life. (and my first "Boss" was Richard M. Nixon!)


Dick,, have you gone back and read your 1500 + posts that drip with hatred of everything Bush and Republican?? Just read what you have written,, or better yet, get someone else to read it without knowing who 'Devil505' is ,, and give you an honest opinion. You may be quite surprised..

I would have to say that this portion of your own words: I can't remember such hatred & vitriol being leveled against a political foe in my life.. Dev, I could and have said these things about your posts... many times !!


Greg L

LsFarm wrote:I would have to say that this portion of your own words: I can't remember such hatred & vitriol being leveled against a political foe in my life.. Dev, I could and have said these things about your posts... many times !!

The huge difference is this:.....Who cares what an unknown private citizen posts on an obscure (sorry Richard) forum dedicated to burning anthracite coal?
I don't even have a chance at impacting more than , what.....(how many people even read the "Of Topic" posts on this forum....)...maybe 25??
Now, how much impact does a John McCain, Rush Limbuagh or Sean Hannity have when they speak in front a a national audie nce?....... Millions of people!


My point is that my anger, hatred & vitriol is meaningless.......I am basically just yakking to myself & therefore I don't have to exercise restraint or worry about the effect of my words.....They have no effect.
Those who have a national "pulpit" have a responsibility to tone down their rhetoric that I don't have.

Edit:
Do I hate GW Bush?....Absoulutely
Do I hate "anything Republican"?...No
I have even voted for Republicans & agree with some of their ideas. What I hate is the current, hypocritical "Neo-Con" version of Republicans in name only. Since when it it a true Republican concept to use American GI's to "nation build" at the cost of billions per month & many lives?........ Since when it it a true Republican concept to "Socialize" the debts of private business & pay them with our tax money, taken at gunpoint?
These are not the Republican concepts of Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater or even Ronald Reagan.....These are the sick, demented visions of GW Bush & will be continued by John McCain if he's elected.

There are also millions who love Obama. You can thank McCain and his ugly political tactics for the disgraceful antics at his rallys.

traderfjp wrote:This is the man who said Chelsea Clinton is ugly and Janet Reno is her father.

No, he said Chelsea is the love child of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno. I thought it was pretty funny, myself It's no different than some of the crazy stuff that Saturday Night Live, Conan, Leno, or Letterman would come up with on those shows. I could even see Conan O'Brian using this when he does the segment where he shows what a child of two famous people might look like if they were to have a child together.

Here is the exact quote: John McCain made this odious joke about Chelsea Clinton back in '98.

Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

-- Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.

A Barack Hussein Obama victory in November will have radical Islamic terrorists throughout the world dancing in the streets, we won't see it on TV here though because the media protects the so-called "messiah". The Middle Eastern street will see a Barack Hussein Obama victory as a divine appointment, ordained by their god, and this will energize their Jihad against the West. Al Qaeda will see a Barack Hussein Obama victory as a sign that this is, indeed, their time and their destiny of establishing a global caliphate in which the whole world will submit to Islamic Sharia law ... it will legitimize, in their warped minds, that their god is at work and their victory is near. The Iotollah and Ahmadinejad of Iran will see a Barack Hussein Obama victory as a confirmation that, this too, is their time ... their time to send the whole world into chaos through the use of nuclear weapons in order to usher in the return of their savior, Muhammed al-Mahdi, back from the dead to save the world from Christians and Jews. A Barack Hussein Obama victory will signal to the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah to continue their terrorist actions against Israel because they have a friend in Barack Hussein Obama, a pacifist just like other memorable Democrats.

There will be change if Barack Hussein Obama becomes President, and if this country survives the change that is coming it'll be nothing short of a miracle. We're going to have shots taken at us from all angles ... economically and militarily ... from Russia, from China, from North Korea, from Venezuela, from Al Qaeda, from within. Before any of you pull that lever for Barack Hussein Obama in November, ask yourselves if you really trust this man to keep this country safe. Remind yourselves of the political party who tore down our military beginning in 1992 when you pick up the papers tomorrow morning and read about Russia testing full-scale intercontinental ballistic missiles and conducting naval exercises in the Carribean, all to prepare for war with the United States of America. Ask yourselves which party occupied the White House when Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons. Remind yourselves of the party of the President who let Bin Laden go, not once, but twice. Think back to the elections of 2004 when Al Qaeda bombed a train station in Madrid, where 190 innocent people where killed, in an effort to try to influence our (and Spain's) election. Think about where you where on the morning of 9/11/01 when Muslim terrorist flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon because we stand in their way of destroying Israel and establishing Islamic Sharia law throughout the world. Do you really trust Barack Hussein Obama after his ties with people who really hate the United States of America? I don't!

Obama will not win the election.

coaledsweat wrote:Obama will not win the election.

Why?

Then there's still this hanging around

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs