Check this out
Obama emails are false.
If you have received any emails about Barack Obama, more than likely they are untrue. This includes the Pledge of Allegiance crap that circulated about two months ago as well as the baloney about him being raised a radical Muslim. Snopes also backs it up here.
Disagree with him all you want in the issues but don't believe much of what you hear in these claims.
16 comments:
Some interesting quotes about Obama below from a couple of articles that attempt to deconstruct him....
JKK may have been a hawk, but what a heavenly hawk in retrospective! Having viewed films & read a lot about him, i don't totally agree with article 2's take, it's not that black & white.
I wasn't born in the 60s but i also read about how during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 with the Soviet Union, JFK had long and intense daily meetings and sessions with 14 Advisors -- who came to be known as 'The Inner Circle.'
Bobby Kennedy (the Attorney General, younger borther & future assassinated presidential nominee) said after the Crisis -- which brought the US to the brink of nuclear war...
"The 14 people involved were very significant -- bright, able, dedicated people, all of whom had the greatest affection for the US.... If six of them had been President of the US, i think that the world might have blown up."
Six of the JKK's inner circle were pushing for war, for screwing the Soviets. I hope we never have a 'Missile Crisis' with a Bushie (or male or female Cheney) in power. Because ESPECIALLY in crises (let alone false ones..) we need cool, calm, selfless, big picture understanding poise in a President -- someone who can consult with people he or she AGREES with AND crucially, disagrees with.
So far, i think Obama displays those cool characteristics and deeper than surface understanding about (as nicely phrased below) 'those on the receiving end of US power.' That's not to say that others in the race don't.
(from article 1: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3149834.ece?token=null&offset=0)
' Mr Obama’s campaign privately prefers to liken him to Bobby Kennedy, JFK’s less hawkish younger brother, who 40 years ago briefly symbolised a moral awakening in a divided and traumatised nation.
Hillary Clinton’s advisers whisperingly compare their rival to Jimmy Carter in 1976, who promised a new beginning after Watergate and Vietnam but whose presidency subsequently became a byword for well-meaning incompetence.
Others say that he closely resembles Bill Clinton, who was similarly inexperienced in 1992 when he was first elected on a platform of hope, rather than fear.
One conservative commentator this week even described Mr Obama as a “liberal version of Ronald Reagan”, whose broad-spectrum appeal ushered in the last significant realignment of American politics.
Mr Obama, with his achingly cool looks, foreign-sounding name and caramel-coloured skin, is perhaps all — and none — of the above. He has chronicled his own struggle with the issue of personal identity, using his first book to peer through an exotic, kaleidoscopic background. He is the son of an absent black Kenyan father and a white mother from Kansas who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii. In that memoir he describes using marijuana and cocaine — to “push questions of who I was out of my mind” — before travelling to his father’s homeland and getting a grip on his life as a student and then a Chicago community organiser.
This ethnic and cultural hybrid now claims that this life story gives him a perspective that makes him unique among presidential candidates, past and present. He hopes to move America beyond the social ructions of the 1960s and away from a foreign policy built by leaders who do not understand what it is like to be on the receiving end of US power. '
(from article 2: http://www.dailymole.com/wordpress/2008/01/16/obama-as-jfk-no-and-yes/ )
' JFK was the first born-for-TV president and thus the first political celebrity of the modern age. His charisma, his storybook life and family, and his gift for sounding high-minded without ultimately saying much or committing himself to anything are all mirrored in the rise of Obama.'
Mark, I wouldn't be so sure about the right and Obama. They will go after him just like the would go after Hillary-with the same tenacity. This is just the first volley. They are going to throw everything they have at him because that is what they do. It is their nature to be divisive and behave like eight year olds.
Let's get some more posts on here.
Go to the archives from October of 2007, comments section of "Please for the love of..."
Mark said ""And let's also remember that it was Bush's fault, not General Patreus's, which caused the environment for the Moveon ad.""
Then vheights said "You know what, guys? Liberals did not start this fight. Conservatives did." followed by "Does anyone recall Bill Clinton inviting the "liberal" media to the White House for a roundtable like this one? To issue his marching orders on getting out "the word?""
Well Judicial Watch posted the first batch of internal Hillary health care task force memos detailing efforts to gather dirt on health care debate activists.
Spying on jihad suspects? Bad. Spying on universal health care opponents? Good.
Some tidbits...that second one is EVERYTHING you folks say about GWB and company. Priceless!! According to Democrat Jay Rockefeller, news organizations were waiting for guidance on how to shape their news coverage? Wow, good job dems. Since you all vote democrat and these folks are all democrats, I hold you all responsible for domestic spying.
A June 18, 1993 internal Memorandum entitled, “A Critique of Our Plan,” authored by someone with the initials “P.S.,” makes the startling admission that critics of Hillary’s health care reform plan were correct: “I can think of parallels in wartime, but I have trouble coming up with a precedent in our peacetime history for such broad and centralized control over a sector of the economy…Is the public really ready for this?… none of us knows whether we can make it work well or at all…”
• A “Confidential” May 26, 1993 Memorandum from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Hillary Clinton entitled, “Health Care Reform Communications,” which criticizes the Task Force as a “secret cabal of Washington policy ‘wonks’” that has engaged in “choking off information” from the public regarding health care reform. The memorandum suggests that Hillary Clinton “use classic opposition research” to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton Administration from Task Force deliberations and to “expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists” in order to deflect criticism. Senator Rockefeller also suggested news organizations “are anxious and willing to receive guidance [from the Clinton Administration] on how to time and shape their [news] coverage.”
• A February 5, 1993 Draft Memorandum from Alexis Herman and Mike Lux detailing the Office of Public Liaison’s plan for the health care reform campaign. The memorandum notes the development of an “interest group data base” detailing whether or not organizations “support(ed) us in the election.” The database would also track personal information about interest group leaders, such as their home phone numbers, addresses, “biographies, analysis of credibility in the media, and known relationships with Congresspeople.”
Then look at Marks entry from the same month “Ah the liberal media…” and you will see this...
“Now I tried to find a photo of Bill Clinton talking with his "troops," which is every single person in mainstream media if you believe conservatives, but I couldn't find one.”
Now you have some evidence...not a photo, but it’s all right there in the memo for you to see.
Yeah, it all started in the year 2000 vheights. Nice try.
So,,, i take it that you will therefore be voting for a non-Clinton, non-evangelical (Bushie & Reagan spied on everyone -- it was 'pre-emptive' or 'preventative' domestic spying :) for our own good!!) non-obvious domestic spymaster (i.e. Rudy or McCain: Mister 'i'll get him myself if i have to go to kandahar to finish the job our president NEVER seriously embarked on, whose every move strengthens as opposed to corners Osama!! :) -- thus leaving OBAMA, RON PAUL, or MITT ROMNEY!! Good for you Masterful (King Crab) Last in Line..... You have seen the light!! :-) & may vote for Barack.
You made quite a leap in logic there.
I never once said I wouldn't vote for anyone who did that. Re-read my post - I didn't even describe it as a bad thing.
I fully support any president of either party gathering information on Al Queda or any other threat to our national security by any means necessary. That is 100% not hypocritical for a conservative to say because National Security is a legitimate function of any government. There is nothing in the constitution that says the government should be responsible for health care, retirement planning, wealth redistribution, etc.(those things are where the "smaller government" argument kicks in for me. When people have convictions (not accusations, convictions...I know I know...it's hard for liberals to wait for a conviction (see: Duke Lacrosse players)) of people misusing the program then you can have actual evidence on your side, not just accusations.
Save the anti-Bush rants that we have heard 1897 times already - my point was that it didn't start in the year 2000 like some are on here claiming.
I came across that info yesterday and realized that it refuted some of the charges that were made on this blog where in the past people said "Show me..." so I decided to show them. They put forth the challenge for people to show Democrats doing exactly what was in the confidential May 26, 1993 memo.
Mark knows that as far as the primary/caucus goes I will be voting for Ron Paul (I'm not a rabid Paulpot by any means).
Just a hunch that I have about who the candidate will be I think we will see a ticket consisting of Romney for prez and Thompson for vp. 2 weeks is an eternity in politics so it's way too early for people (us peasants as well as professional political pundits) to have enough info to make accurate predictions.
Even though I won't vote for him I think Barack is smart enough to do the right thing as far as national security goes. He can keep all the same national security programs in place that people are screaming about now and he will face less criticism from the same small group of folks who are screaming the loudest. He'll keep them in place for self-interest purposes. Imagine a president going in front of the nation proudly proclaiming about scrapping the NSA program and 4 months later we get hit. Can you say 8% approval ratings?
"Imagine a president going in front of the nation proudly proclaiming about scrapping the NSA program and 4 months later we get hit. Can you say 8% approval ratings?"
Well, isn't that sort of what happened when Bush took office? He talked a good game about how tough he was and then we got hit. His approval rating actually went up.
Sounds good.
Except for… (not the expression of intelligent opinion but the deduction or links made about Americans’ national security being protected by domestic spying... or this government’s benevolent intentions – all old ground on this blog, so trying to keep it concise…): ‘ I fully support any president of either party gathering information on Al Qaeda or any other threat to our national security by any means necessary. ’
If the President’s (launched in 2002 and illegal until forced in 2004, by a Federal Judge on the FISA Court and his Ally: Deputy Attorney General at the time, who refused to reauthorize the Administration’s arbitrary spying on Americans without FIRST obtaining warrants and putting it into law, which the government had been refusing to do, claiming the need for vast, uncodified, unsupervised or moment’s notice domestic surveillance…) IF this domestic spying program actually PROTECTED AMERICANS and National Security, why is it that not a single terrorism-related conviction has resulted? 7 years, on. In 2001 US citizens made 1.2 billion landline calls, 800 million cell phone calls and sent a trillion emails that year, that has now possibly quadrupled. Since 2001 / 2002 the NSA, through billions of computer generated algorhythmic fishing trips, very few phonecalls and emails are sifted by human beings -- then narrows this down to “millions” of communications 'of interest' which it then swamps the CIA and FBI with, on any given day. Neither Agency can competently handle this humongous traffic of vastly increased bureacracy. (And we wonder why the terrorists are winning? Maybe because they don't use our advanced technologies....) IF ANY of these communications RESULTED in a SINGLE conviction (Terrorism or National-Security related) that might POSSIBLY justify some of the trillions of dollars wasted on this (corporate-greed or Admin’s personal or political vendetta driven rather than National Security related...) domestic spying programme.
If the program was of ANY value WHATSOEVER, why was it News carried on all the wires this month, that US Telecom companies are now disconnecting ‘eavesdropping’ phone taps channeled straight to the FBI on millions of American lines considered ‘of interest’ and connected to the vast domestic spying network, because the FBI (i.e. government) doesn’t consider it important enough to pay these bills, because frankly, they’re not getting anything out of any of it, or are just so damn swamped that they’re not able to act in any kind of valuable or real-time way, on what they ARE getting.
So, it’s just more propaganda. Oooooooooooh, be afraid of the people we aren'e even tracking, be very afraid.... we’re protecting National Security by recording billions of terrabytes of conversations of millions of Americans talk to their relatives, sometimes in Arabic Urdu or Farsi!!! And creating No-Fly lists as a result. Bollocks. Or you’d see it all over Fox News – one – just one successful case / conviction...
Dick, the hijackers were living in the country for several years before Bush took office and the planning for the event started way before Bush took office. That is fact. Hindsight is always 20/20 and don't ever mistake hindsight for wisdom. In 2001 our entire country had a huge case of "it won't happen here", myself included.
I really don't like to debate "what if's" but I wonder what liberals would have said if John Ashcroft went on TV on 9/10/01 and said that the administration arrested and detained 19 Muslims whose crime thus far was attending American flight schools. Think CAIR and the ACLU would have had a field day with that one? Ah well, just hindsight again.
Joanne, there were terrorist attacks/plots thwarted in Italy just last year where Italian authorities used eavesdropping to listen in on the communications of 3 or 4 Islamic nutjobs. I posted the story on this blog some time ago. I'm not "afraid" of your average Islamic nutjob but I would like my government to keep their eye on the ball. Hell I was walking around the streets of Medellin, Colombia last month (not Islamic but still quite dangerous).
I don't know why we haven't seen any convictions...I myself don't care if I see any convictions for what you wrote about because asking for convictions hints at a "law enforcement" approach to the war on terror. Catching and convicting the bad guys, as Clinton did with the 1993 wtc bombers, did nothing to stop future attacks. I don't want every terrorist we catch on the battlefield tried in a court of law...I want every mission of their to be a suicide mission (with our help at the end of course). Every penny we spend keeping the shoe bomber Richard Reid alive in prison is wasted IMO.
Besides, the trials may result in information becoming public that reveals sources, methods, etc....not exactly information that I would want available for public consumption.
Last thing Joanne...you think the terrorists are winning? (4 lines up from the bottom in your second paragraph). How do you define winning?
Of course, if you don't want to chat about this on here we can talk about all of this over dinner.
I define winning, by....
i just wrote two paragraphs and deleted them. You're right, i don't want to dicuss it on here.
as for dinner, interesting. (also physically impossible, which makes it more interesting.) i'm talking to a lot of people with extreme views these days so one more from the homeland, would be educational.
btw, there are terrorists, Terrorists and counter-Terrorists. The Palestinian armed movements (whether Fatah or Hamas, both on the I Hit list) claim to be counter-terrorists to state Terror. Iraqi insurgents (the ones focusing on the us military presence as opposed to the salafi-inspired t's killing every civilian in sight) claim to be in the right, fighting permanent or longterm military occupation resulting in the opposite of democracy, insititutionalised plunder & corruption. Americans say they are fighting for freedom and democracy in these and other resource-rich lands. just wished to make the clarification and no need to expand on the point :) John Waxey, where are you when you are needed? :-)
John Waxey is busy FUCKING THE ALLIANCE!!! Those emo bastards!!
Aww c'mon JT, you can discuss winning here. Remember - you have the ability to type more than 1 line insults...you can actually type a few paragraphs. Then again, who is a terrorist and who isn't, the legality of wiretapping, whether GWB is right or wrong isn't really my point. My point was that anyone claiming that all this started in the year 2000 when GWB took office is either ignorant or a liar. FDR had a passion for spying on his political opponents and I think Justdave posted info on here about the Kennedys spying on people as well.
cool. so, your point is valid. i still like to make the distinction between FAULTY (which we all have,) BAD and WORSE. it's just uncanny how some presidents are better and less scrupulous at doing illegal things and pushing the envelope than others, but it's all GOOD no? because others leaders have done it before.
All we need now is a President who's been addicted to heroin (don't go there just dave..) and then EVERYTHING WILL BE AOK. Theft, spying, lying, mass murder, drug addiction, serial adultery. WOAH. Cool. We should just set the bar real low and vote for the sleaziest, most criminal, inhuman, cold-blooded, heartless, addicted and psycho personality out there -- for president of the United States -- and that will just make it all LEGIT.
Maybe Marion Berry is available?...
oh. and did we choose marion berry because he's black? let's see, which is worse... taking drugs to kill your brain. or killing a million people. hmm. i guess that would pose a dilemma to some.
in addition to your point being very valid, Crab Master, i think the reason they are winning, is because there is such a huge disconnect between assumptions and reality in the Middle East.
The reality is the Armed Movements and their leaders in the region (this part of the world) are (on every pro and anti media outlet and every poll out there, subsequently published) the most revered and respected individuals, known for their straight talk and follow through, in other words the complete opposite of the majority of the region's leaders (our allies) and whatever the president says on his weeklong tour, which is politely applauded by the elites and then immediately ignored, whereas it's mocked and ignored by the people. Momentum is on the side of the 'bad guys' and that's directly because of what we have done, what we do, and what we fail to do, in the ME. If there's one more disastrous failed invasion (by either israel or the us) just say hello to the new united empire of Shia-Sunni-Chrsitian 'Resistance' (that's resistance to America.)
The race card?...come now, joanne, I expect more from a person with your education.
ok. sorry. obama's being positive so i shouldn't be negative. (unless that was just a very clever bill clinton move on your part :)
Post a Comment