Barack Hussein Obama whine thread

[dude1394]

Got to find a place for the whining....

Writes Beth Fouhy:

"McCain says 'Here's my plan, I'm going to drill here, drill now which is something he only came up with two months ago when he started looking at polling," Obama said of McCain's energy policy.

The GOP hopeful has become a vocal proponent of offshore oil drilling as a way to ease U.S. dependence on foreign oil and has criticized Obama for failing to embrace it as a way to help bring down oil prices. Obama noted that McCain had long opposed lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.

The Illinois senator also criticized McCain's advisers as "the same old folks that brought you George W. Bush. The same team." He noted many had been lobbyists in Washington before McCain asked them to sever all lobbying ties.

Obama added, "They say this other guy is unpatriotic, or this guy likes French people. That's what they said about Kerry," referring to the 2004 Democratic nominee who lost narrowly to Bush. "They try to make it out like Democrats aren't tough enough, aren't macho enough. It's the same strategy."

[Arne]

Race card sighting, race card, race card, oh my god I'm going to start crying... Race card!!! That's so hypocrite.

[dude1394]

Ah...I get it, you thought it was whining. It wasn't it was highlighting his racial campaigning on it's own.

I don't care if he continues to use the race card, it just shows him for what he is. Carry on brotha' obama.

[chumdawg]

Where is the "whine" in the quote you posted?

[mcsluggo]

Chum, you miss the point... this is the Obama whine THREAD.

carry on with the whining.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Chum, you miss the point... this is the Obama whine THREAD.

So, no different than MOST threads in the Political Forum?

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Chum, you miss the point... this is the Obama whine THREAD.

carry on with the whining.

You are a fair man. I respect the man who tries to honestly congregate all whining about Barack Obama in one spot so that the rest of the forum may not have to witness the daily beatings of a dead horse.

[dude1394]

Heh...

Democrat Barack Obama challenged his Republican opponent John McCain on Tuesday to stop questioning his "character and patriotism."

[Arne]

Haha, quite funny. Obama bashing McCain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vueHtYNh4w

[dude1394]

Is this the guy you really want in the white house?? Prosecuting an ad that is 100% factual?

We noted here efforts by Barack Obama's campaign to shut down his critics' free speech. In particular, Obama obviously doesn't want the public to know about his long-term, cozy relationship with proud-to-be-a-terrorist Bill Ayers. Now, Obama himself has upped the ante by demanding that the conservative who funded the Ayers ad be criminally prosecuted:

Obama general counsel Bob Bauer today sent a second, sharper letter to the Justice Department, directly attacking the Dallas billionaire funding a harsh attack ad, Harold Simmons.

"We reiterate our request that the Department of Justice fulfill its commitment to take prompt action to investigate and to prosecute the American issues Project, and we further request that the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute Howard (sic) Simmons for a knowing and willful violation of the individual aggregate contribution limits," he wrote.

Obama's suggestion that it is illegal for a 501(c)(4) entity to fund issue ads that are negative toward him appears ludicrous. Here's the real question, though: if Obama is elected President, will he appoint an Attorney General who will carry out politically-motivated prosecutions like the one he is now demanding? I suppose we can't know for sure, but why wouldn't he? If he demands criminal prosecution of free speech that opposes his political interests when he's a candidate, why wouldn't he order it as President?

and a follow-up..
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...e_Simmons.html

It's worth noting that this isn't the first time Bauer has called for criminal investigations and prosecutions into the donors to independent groups critical of Obama, including one supporting John Edwards and another supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. His words did have the effect of scaring their donors and consultants, but haven't yet appeared to result in any prosecution.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Is this the guy you really want in the white house?? Prosecuting an ad that is 100% factual?

The video is here

[Flacolaco]

That's just a step away from Chavez in Venezuela who had an entire TV channel taken off the air for criticizing his "administration."

[Usually Lurkin]

uh, it will be called a fairness doctrine.
And get used to it. Obama knows whats fair, and you Texans in Texas will have to deal with it much more than us Texans in California.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

The video is here

If an ad like that convinces you, you either checked your brain at the door or you don't have one that works normally.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If an ad like that convinces you, you either checked your brain at the door or you don't have one that works normally.

uh, find an ad that doesn't fit that sentence, then the sentence might mean something.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

uh, find an ad that doesn't fit that sentence, then the sentence might mean something.

A good political ad, of which there are many fine historical examples, highlights an opponent's perceived weakness without having to ask the audience to put on a tin foil hat. If you think this ad is in the same class as those, then there is no talking to you. Carry on.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

A good political ad, of which there are many fine historical examples, highlights an opponent's perceived weakness without having to ask the audience to put on a tin foil hat. If you think this ad is in the same class as those, then there is no talking to you. Carry on.

If any political ad does anything more than encourage you to do some research, then you've checked your brain.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If any political ad does anything more than encourage you to do some research, then you've checked your brain.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss entirely the idea that impressions can be formed, without the requisite research, and fairly reliably depended upon...when the message appears genuine and intellectually honest. In fact, a good ad is one that minimizes the amount of research you would even need to do if you were so inclined.

But this ad? You'd have to be a partisan hack with zero sense of objectivity to be moved by it. Or, just plain stupid.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't think it's fair to dismiss entirely the idea that impressions can be formed, without the requisite research, and fairly reliably depended upon...when the message appears genuine and intellectually honest. In fact, a good ad is one that minimizes the amount of research you would even need to do if you were so inclined.

But this ad? You'd have to be a partisan hack with zero sense of objectivity to be moved by it. Or, just plain stupid.

So you have found an ad that would convince you of something like who to vote for for president or whether a relationship between Ayers and Obama exists or is important?

moved to do what? Do some research into the relationship between Ayers and Obama? You'd be stupid to be moved to do that research?

[chumdawg]

Convince? No. Form impressions? Yes.

Did you ever hear from the conspiracy theorists that say the US government was actually behind 9/11? Did that move you to research it? Or did you just say, "Oh, here go those crackpots again"?

You can research it if you like, don't get me wrong. But if ads like that one get you to researching things, you aren't going to have a lot of time left to get about your everyday life.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

That's just a step away from Chavez in Venezuela who had an entire TV channel taken off the air for criticizing his "administration."

He didn't renew the license for a TV channel that actively participated in an attempted coup d'etat. The channel can still be seen over satelite.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Convince? No. Form impressions? Yes.

Did you ever hear from the conspiracy theorists that say the US government was actually behind 9/11? Did that move you to research it? Or did you just say, "Oh, here go those crackpots again"?

You can research it if you like, don't get me wrong. But if ads like that one get you to researching things, you aren't going to have a lot of time left to get about your everyday life.

Yeah, better believe everything you're fed by the media. Even though they don'T even have the time to research their reports.

Or did you read anywhere that global temperatures are in a decline for the last 10 years? Nope.

[Willstar]

germany loves obama. europe loves obama. if the usa wants more people to hate the usa then go for mccain. (europe loves obama because of his political ideas not the way he looks btw)

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Willstar

germany loves obama. europe loves obama. if the usa wants more people to hate the usa then go for mccain. (europe loves obama because of his political ideas not the way he looks btw)

Which political ideas does Europe love? I live in Europe and I hardly know anybody who can point to a specific policy that they like about Obama, except for leaving Iraq, which he'll compensate for by increasing the troops in Afghanisthan.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Willstar

germany loves obama. europe loves obama. if the usa wants more people to hate the usa then go for mccain. (europe loves obama because of his political ideas not the way he looks btw)

Maybe the best reason I've heard to vote for Mac'08 in a while. I agree, the socialist-leaning europeans do love Barack Hussein Obama for his political ideas AND the other.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Maybe the best reason I've heard to vote for Mac'08 in a while. I agree, the socialist-leaning europeans do love Barack Hussein Obama for his political ideas AND the other.

Once again, Europeans know very very little about his economic policies. All they know is that he wants to leave Iraq. So don't draw any conclusions out of nothing.

[Flacolaco]

So as a logical corollary, do the Europeans feel that if a pull-out deal is negotiated with Iraq before the election, they won't like him nearly as much?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Arne

Once again, Europeans know very very little about his economic policies. All they know is that he wants to leave Iraq. So don't draw any conclusions out of nothing.

If "all they know is that he wants to leave Iraq", then the Europeans are far more uneducated than the Americans.

So what do Europeans know of his further plans, beyond Iraq? Do Europeans want him to send troops to Afghanistan? To Georgia? To Germany? Back home? Surely the Europeans know more than you allude to. If 200K Germans rallied in the streets for Obama because all they know is that he's removing troops from Iraq, will they still like him when/if the Georgia/Russia problem blows up and he deploys troops in your backyard?

[Arne]

Originally Posted by jefelump

If "all they know is that he wants to leave Iraq", then the Europeans are far more uneducated than the Americans.

So what do Europeans know of his further plans, beyond Iraq? Do Europeans want him to send troops to Afghanistan? To Georgia? To Germany? Back home? Surely the Europeans know more than you allude to. If 200K Germans rallied in the streets for Obama because all they know is that he's removing troops from Iraq, will they still like him when/if the Georgia/Russia problem blows up and he deploys troops in your backyard?

First of all, Europeans are more uneducated about OBAMA. What does the average American know about Guido Westerwelle? Nothing. Thought so.

Then, the 200.000 people might have been a little bit more informed, but it was a really mixed crowd and reactions were not the same throughout the whole speach. When he talked about the war on terror hardly anybody gave applause. When he talked about shutting down Guantanamo there was a really good reaction for example. People were interested first and foremost. Free speech was not an option, people were not allowed to bring their own signs and therefore it must have seemed like everybody loves everything about Obama. Had there been the opportunity to show protest people would've brought their anti-death-penalty signs, their anti-war signs, etc.

[dude1394]

They said that if Barack Hussein Obama is elected (gack) our free speech rights would be attacked by the guvment. Appears "they" are right.

Pretty shocking (NOT) to hear the crickets chirping from the ACLU here.
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Do...ch_or_not.html

Editorial: Does Obama support free speech or not?

Examiner Staff Writer 8/27/08
Democrats such as Barack Obama are increasingly showing a disturbing eagerness to invoke the power of the state to silence critics. The latest example of this growing anti-First Amendment mentality is Obama’s heavy-handed response to a television ad by an independent nonprofit that raises some very basic questions about the Illinois senator’s relationship with William Ayers, the unrepentant 1960s terrorist bomber.

Obama’s campaign has encouraged supporters to flood television stations with protests whenever they see the ad. Nothing wrong with that, but the other thrust of the Obama response was to ask the Justice Department to intervene to stop further airing of the ad. That’s where Obama crossed the line and raised a question of fundamental importance — does he or does he not believe the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech?

The ad was produced by a tax-exempt nonprofit, the American Issues Project, whose primary donor is an individual previously associated with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the controversial group that ran television ads in 2004 questioning Sen. John Kerry’s account of his Vietnam service. Fox News and CNN have declined to air the ad, but it has appeared on numerous other stations.

Here’s the key portion of the ad’s text: “Barack Obama is friends with Ayers, defending him as, quote, ‘Respectable’ and ‘Mainstream.’ Obama’s political career was launched in Ayers’ home. And the two served together on a left-wing board. Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it? Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?”

The Obama campaign describes the ad as “false, despicable and outrageous,” according to The Associated Press. If the ad is false, the Obama campaign should have no trouble refuting it, which would likely be sufficient to persuade stations to decline the ad. Yet we’ve seen no such refutation.

More worrisome is Obama’s claim in his letter seeking Justice Department intervention that the American Issues Project is willfully violating campaign finance laws. The reality is that the AIP appears to have satisfied all applicable federal regulations.

Any request by any political campaign that federal officials intervene to stop the airing of legitimate political opinion ought to throw up red flags to everybody who cares about protecting the First Amendment. Obama would do well to provide credible answers to the questions raised by the AIP ad. And he should make it unequivocally clear that he supports freedom of speech for everybody, including his critics.

[dude1394]

I'm beginning to think that Barack Hussein Obama IS a new kind of politician. I haven't seen this type of politics since...oh around the Reichstag burning I believe.

He's pure as the driven snow, but his surrogates will orchestrate the shouting down of any criticism. I have no problem if the koskids do it, but if this is the "change" and how "chicago politics" works, I don't think folks will really be that happy about it.

Stanley Kurtz is a "slimy character assassin" because he has been poking at the Obama/Ayers/Chicago Annenberg Challenge story? Geez, that is a bizarre over-reaction from Team Obama. What's next, the Kewl Kids will mock his wheels at the Prom?

Here we go:

And tonight, the campaign launched a more specific campaign: an effort to disrupt the appearance by a writer for National Review, Stanley Kurtz, on a Chicago radio program. Kurtz has been writing about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, and has suggested that papers housed at the University of Illinois at Chicago would reveal new details of that relationship.

The campaign e-mailed Chicago supporters who had signed up for the Obama Action Wire with detailed instructions including the station's telephone number and the show's extension, as well as a research file on Kurtz, which seems to prove that he's a conservative, which isn't in dispute. The file cites a couple of his more controversial pieces, notably his much-maligned claim that same-sex unions have undermined marriage in Scandinavia.

They aren't interested in rebutting this, just shutting down any and all criticism of the freshman first term messiah.

Christenson also stressed that the Obama campaign was invited to send a representative to appear on the show to balance the discussion of the newly-opened documents. But the campaign headquarters just down Michigan Avenue from the station refused the request. This is not the first time Obama's organization has sought to steer supporters to influence a broadcast outlet airing criticism.

[chumdawg]

Anybody want a piece of Obama right about now?

[DirkFTW]

Why, what happened?

[chumdawg]

He spoke at his convention. You weren't watching?

[Flacolaco]

I was watching Mythbusters.

[Flacolaco]

Oh I'm just sorry I even looked....

“Tonight, more Americans are out of work, and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes, and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay and tuition that’s beyond your reach.”

Fun.

“Tonight, more Americans are out of work, and more are working harder for less.

Like the people who get taxed more because they're working harder? Pretty sure you're only going to exacerbate that problem.

More of you have lost your homes,

It's their fault dumb fault. They bit off more than they can chew.

and even more are watching your home values plummet.

Yeah we are, and it's not Bush's fault, it's the idiots who bought all the ARMs and the bastards who sold them.

More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive,

Maybe you shouldn't have bought it.

credit card bills you can't afford to pay

It's not your fault! You poor besotted humans with your big screen tv's and high interest rates. The Republicans forced you to be stupid!

That's all I think I can read. What a load of dribble. Don't worry America....teach your kids that it's ok to screw up. It's never your fault. Everyone is a victim.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Everyone is a victim.

Liberal religion.

[chumdawg]

You do want a large and healthy economy, don't you? You do want an economy that keeps you in your job and able to pay your mortgage, don't you?

I know you just bought a house and are trying to start a family. I don't expect you would like it if you found yourself out of work, for whatever reason. I sense that you feel pretty insulated from something like that happening to you. What I don't sense is that you have much empathy for what folks in, say, Michigan are going through.

We're talking about national issues, not Flacolaco's life story. I'm not sure you grasp what that means.

[Flacolaco]

I'm not really sure what your point is, chum. Are you asking me if I can see why he said those things? Sure I can see why he said those things. He wants those poor souls in Michigan to vote for him.

The question is what has Obama ever fixed? Does he know how to fix that? He doesn't have any experience. He doesn't have credentials, he doesn't have any skins on the wall. Michigan might want to check out it's democrat governor and it's democrat house of representatives and take a minute to think about the situation.

Why (I take from the tone of your response) are we operating under the assumption that Barrack can help them more than McCain can?

For sure they're in a bad way there, and I agree with you that theirs is a bad situation that perhaps one couldn't insulate themselves from (although look at all the bloody Red Wing fans in Dallas...the smart ones left)...but that doesn't make his words and any more meaningful.

Besides, what about the other 49...sorry, 56 states?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Why (I take from the tone of your response) are we operating under the assumption that Barrack can help them more than McCain can?

Well, that's the question that we need to answer in this election. But this is a shift for you. You have earlier argued that no one needs any "help," or has any right to it.

What I am saying is that it isn't about Flacolaco who has the good fortune (God bless Texas) of living in a state with a thriving economy. It's about the people in places like Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania who don't enjoy the same economic situation that we enjoy. We could explore why their situation is so different from ours, but that would miss the point.

The point is that we are talking about a national campaign, which includes the Michigans and the Ohios and the Pennsylvanias just as well as it includes Texas. Texas is doing well. What can we do to prop up the others?

That's the fundamental question in this campaign, and it seems to be one that we don't see eye to eye on. You know that it's good for you here--which is great, to be sure--and you thus surmise that it should be great for everyone. But people in other states don't necessarily have the same opportunities that you have. If you had to move to Detroit to enjoy the same standard of life that you enjoy now, would you be okay with that?

I'm just saying...I know it's good for Texans...but it's a national election, and for a lot of other states, it's not so good for the people there.

That is the battleground the election is being waged upon. It can't be simplified into "Texas terms" as you would like for it to be.