A discussion on notions of Obama's terrorist ties

Hello all. I'm fairly new to this politicalds but very excited to offer some input. I would like to start my first post by asking a question and hoping to bring out some discussion on the topic of Obama's accused ties to radical terrorists. If you haven't seen this video Sean asserts that Obama is tied to many radicals.
Here is my question. Whether or not these ties are either 1. true 2. of any importance, or 3. lies I am extremely curious as to why obama supporters dont seem to be calling him to account for the inconsistencies and dismissed queries on this matter?
I would love to hear some opinions from you about why this hasn't seemed to bother many people that he truly does have "ties" to Bill Ayers (and dismissed his relationship as just a guy in the neighborhood) and others from Rev Wright who hates white america, to His first mentor and communist writer, Frank Marshall Davis.
Are these ties important? Could they actually lead to any malpractice of Presidential office? if they are.... why are a supposed 40-50% of polled americans seeming to have dismissed them and chosen their man to be Obama?
Thanks!

48 comments:

Coy said...

As a follow up. I just spoke to a friend of mine who works in DC for the department of defense. He states that Obama already would not qualify for clearance to Top Secret info let alone higher info as president. How will this work out assuming my friend is correct, and Obama were to win?

The Faithful Dissident said...

I'm not really familiar with Top Secret procedures, but I'm guessing it has something to do with this questionnaire.

I dunno... the drug thing doesn't really bother me. Clinton did drugs too, unless not inhaling was enough to get you a pass. :)

Ayers probably falls into the "Your association record" category. Is it a problem? Probably only until they investigate whatever there is to investigate. I just think there's only so much to this whole Ayers story and I think they've dug up all the dirt that there is to be dug up. Yeah, so Obama had an association with this guy. But it doesn't appear that he knew what Ayers was up to when he was 8 years old. Even if someone filled him in on it and he still chose to serve on that committee with him or go to his house, is it really as huge an issue as McCain and Palin are making it out to be? The guy was released from prison and he seemed to be living a normal life in society again. Whether he deserved to or not, what was Obama supposed to do? Would you refuse to hang out with somebody based on their past? I don't know, MAYBE Obama should have said to him, "Look, Ayers. I know what you did and therefore I don't want to be associated with you." That would have either made him a man of huge integrity or a major snob, depending on how you look at it, and that's assuming that he even knew of Ayers' background. So what more is there to this story? It's not like Obama and Ayers were planting terrorist attacks together. If there was any hint of a possibility of that, I'm sure that McCain would have jumped on the opportunity. But all they can come up with is guilt by association which Obama himself may not have even been fully aware of until after the fact.

Obama has denounced what Ayers did. Now, I'm not suggesting that Palin hangs out with abortion clinic bombers, but I do find it interesting that she couldn't denounce them as terrorists.

{When asked Thursday night by NBC television presenter Brian Williams whether an abortion clinic bomber was a terrorist, Palin heaved a sigh and, at first, circumvented the question.

"There's no question that Bill Ayers by his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our US Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist," Palin said, referring to a 1960s leftist who founded a radical violent gang dubbed the "Weathermen" -- and who years later supported Obama's first run for public office in the state of Illinois.

"Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that it would be unacceptable to... I don't know if you're gonna use the word 'terrorist' there," the ardently pro-life running mate of John McCain said.}

So, I guess what Palin is saying is that if Ayers had only harmed innocent Americans or facilities, then she probably couldn't call him a terrorist. So, in that case, if Obama was hanging out with abortion clinic bombers, he could have escaped the associating with terrorists charge.

He should have known better. :D

Anonymous said...

Coy, Jeremiah Wright doesn't hate white America, no more than the biblical Jeremiah hated ancient Israel. Both were Godly men calling their countries to account.

McCain has "ties" (a wonderfully nebulous word for people who like to spread misinformation without appearing to actually lie) to G. Gordon Liddy and to anti-Castro Cuban expatriate terrorists in Floride--people who have done far more damage and killed far more people than Ayres.

Does that bother you? (I'm guessing not, since you probably aren't aware of them or their links to McCain. Ignorance can be bliss.)

As for Frank Marshall Davis: he was opposing racism back in the days when the LDS Church was teaching that black people deserved their oppression because they'd remained neutral in the supposed war in heaven. He was by far a finer human being than, say, the racist Ezra Taft Benson.

As for your followup: the DoD does not determine who will be president. The voters do. Once Obama is president he will also be commander in chief, and the DoD will do as he tells them to do.

Next question?

--David

Stephanie said...

Welcome, Coy! Glad to have another "right-minded" contributor on board.

I don't know enough about this to really make an assertion, and I likely will not spend a lot of time researching it since I have already decided not to vote for Obama for other reasons.

Coy said...

Great, we have some opinions. I am intrigued for many reasons about this. I hear so many people write off the abundance of lingering questions as to Obama's "ties" and his unreleased records, from his birth certificate to his college and health records. What is he hiding?
So, I also hear people saying things like "big deal" if he has terrorist ties. Ironically, many of those people would be the same people who belong to the Bush conspiracy 9/11 theory.
If Ayers is not a big deal, why does Obama lie about the relationship by saying he is just a guy int he neighborhood? Ayers not long ago said he wished they would have bombed MORE, and would not rule out wishing to do it again? Ayers held a campaign launch party for Obama at his house. Sorry, but they are more than just acquaintances.
And while someone like me (who will amount to nothing politically in my life) can easily make friends with people with past sins and forgive them/see them for who they are, someone going to lead a country needs to be free of these POSSIBLE connections. We do not take chances with a position that important.
Again, why is this something people are willing to shrug off?
Lastly, David... hahahaha. are you sure you are on the right blog? I didn't think this blog was for anti-Mormon discussion. I mean, wow. Clearly you are just trying to push buttons with your words about Pres. Benson.
Get some class man.

Anonymous said...

Coy, Ayres did NOT recently say he wished he had "bombed" more. He said he wished he had "done" more. There's a difference.

Look, if you get your info about Obama from Sean Hannity, it's, well, like me getting info about the LDS Church from Sandra Tanner.

As for Benson--a racist creep is a racist creep. Especially in comparison to someone like Jeremiah Wright.

It's not "anti-Mormon" for me to criticize Benson and his racist beliefs--no more than it's anti-black of you to criticize Jeremiah Wright. Just because you criticize one black man, and one strain of thinking indulged in by some African-American preachers, does not make you racist. Similarly, just because I criticize one Mormon, and one particular strain of thinking indulged in by some Mormon leaders, does not make me anti-Mormon.

Let me ask you this. Let's suppose I conclude (as you seem to think I should) that I should not vote for Obama because Obama failed to unequivocally repudiate the evil of William Ayres.

OK, fine. But on the same grounds I'm now going to reject Brigham Young because he failed to unequivocally repudiate the mass murder committed by John H. Higbee at Mountain Meadows.

Surely this multiple-murderer (and several others) are as bad as Ayres. Young could have and should have worked to bring them to justice but notoriously did not. (In this regard he failed as both governor and church president.)

The point is that you probably don't find Young's moral laxity in this regard a sufficient reason to repudiate Young re Higbee, and all the good that they were, after all, capable of doing. That strikes me as reasonable. But if it's reasonable of you to feel that way about Young re Mountain Meadows, it's equally (if not more) reasonable of Obama supporters to feel that way about Obama re Ayres.

So lay off the mote in the Obama supporter's eye long enough to notice the log in your own.

And I'm NOT being anti-Mormon. I'm using Mormon history to make an analogy I hope will be especially persuasive to Mormons.

Anyway, I didn't play the racist card on you, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't play the religious bigot card on me.

--David

Stephanie said...

Coy, you bring up something I wanted to ask about: Obama's citizenship. On Friday, a judge dismissed the case over whether Obama is actually a U.S. citizen or not.

What is interesting is why: In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.

Why not? Who has the power here?

Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

Does anyone else feel that personal liberty is slipping away?

The attorney in the case said: If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States – the most powerful man in the entire world – is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?

Another reason the judge gave for dismissing the case is the following: "Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted," Surrick states, "and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory."

So, because the elections are already well underway, it is irrelevant whether or not the next President fits the constitutional requirements to be a President? Just screw the constitution?

To be fair, the judge cites the case in which McCain's citizenship was questioned. That judge dismissed the case because a voter cannot sue to prevent an allegedly unconstitutional candidate.

Well, I disagree with that, too. Why not? (Plus, it would be great to start the Republican primaries all over without McCain).

This is the ultimate conclusion of the judge in Obama's case: The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.

Hmm. Really? I disagree. I am glad Berg (the attorney) is going to appeal. If there really is evidence that Obama isn't eligible, then let's see it. If not, dismiss the case for that - not because "it wouldn't really harm voters that much if he isn't".

Cameron said...

Here is my question. Whether or not these ties are either 1. true 2. of any importance, or 3. lies I am extremely curious as to why obama supporters dont seem to be calling him to account for the inconsistencies and dismissed queries on this matter?

It's largely because these things were brought up by Hillary during the primaries, and so our ADD riddled public has moved on.

mfranti said...

*sigh*

i can't believe this is an issue

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

mfranti said...

as for the ayers issue.

factcheck.org and
politifact.com can answer any questions you may have about their relationship, assuming you have an open mind and want to know the facts.

mfranti said...

also,

FD, that link to the "stafford voice" is disturbing!

Anonymous said...

IANAL, but it seems to me that if Obama has produced a Hawaii birth certificate he has met the burden of demonstrating his citizenship. If someone believes the birth certificate is forged one would think the burden of proof would be on that person to provide evidence of the forgery, or evidence that Obama was in fact NOT born in Hawaii.

One would think the first thing the judge would do is ask the plaintiff whether there's any evidence of forgery, or if it's just a hunch or suspicion. If the plaintiff replied like this...

"No, your honor, I have no evidence of forgery. But I don't trust the guy so I want to make Obama come in here and PROVE that there's no forgery."

...then I'd expect the judge to dismiss the suit as frivolous.

I mean, that's what would happen to me if I sued my neighbor for killing my dog, and told the judge I had no actual evidence that my neighbor killed my dog, but I was suspicious anyway and wanted to haul my neighbor into court anyway to prove his innocence....

So I don't understand why the judge has to bring up the question of standing at all. Just toss the suit as frivolous.

Now, HERE's an interesting hypothetical: Suppose Obama HAS hoodwinked us all and in fact is NOT a U.S. citizen and wins the election. Suppose the truth comes out a year from now and he is removed from office--does Biden become president? (I suspect so.) But what if the truth comes out Nov. 10? Does Biden take office on Jan. 20th? Does McCain?

--David

Stephanie said...

But he didn't dismiss the suit as frivilous. He essentially said that it doesn't matter if it is real or not. It appears to me that the certificate is real, but I find the judge's ruling to be peculiar and disturbing.

Stephanie said...

I suppose it is not that peculiar since the judge in the McCain case made a similar ruling, but I am still bothered by it. I mean, why have a constitutional requirement for President at all if it is irrelevant because "the alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury" and finding that a Presidential candidate lacks the constitutional requirements would "derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted"?

Anonymous said...

Hey, I agree with you, Stephanie! I don't think the suit should have been heard, but I agree that this judge's reason for tossing it is pretty disturbing. Of course we all have a stake in whether our president is constitutionally eligible to serve, and it just seems bizarre for the judge to deny that.

It seems all the more bizarre when there's such a better reason to throw out the suit.

--David

Coy said...

There is no comparison to my asking questions, to your bashing my prophets. You are clearly out of line David. Brigham Young and Mt. meadows Massacre, hahaha! Throw out everything you know how and try to make it fit into your twisted agenda, hahaha. Do your homework, and please keep to facts in this discussion, not harsh words meant to push peoples angry buttons. Our conversation would be much more intelligible if you would.
I liked what The Faithful Dissident said about Ayers falling into ""Your association record" category. Is it a problem?" Honestly, that is the question here. Is it a problem? Now THAT is an intelligible comment we can work with. Thank you.
I might respond... If McCain (whom I don't love by the way) were to be working side by side with someone like Bin Laden (fast forward 40 years from now in a hypothetical situation), and had "Hypo Bin Laden" host a campaign party for him. Knowing they had a working relationship, and then hearing McCain for some reason brush it off and lie by stating that he is just another guy in the hood, would we wonder what he is hiding? Would we have doubts about his past connections to a terrible terrorist? If McCain were associated this closely to someone like this, would it matter?
It would to me. I am not politically blind, and can see the weakness where it lies, whether on my own side or the other.
Any more thoughts on why this is not more of an issue, so many connections to possible trouble.... people who have terrible pasts or intentions? I mean, we are not electing a PTA president, its the US president. Thoughts?

The Faithful Dissident said...

I think you guys gotta take mfranti's advice and read factcheck and politicheck (and that goes for Dems and Reps).

Honestly, if inflating this whole Ayers story is the best that McCain and Palin can come up with, it's no wonder he's trailing in the polls. Especially since Hillary has been there and done that. Didn't help her much either.

I think it's fine to ask questions about anything, whether it be Ayers or Wright. But now it's just a dead horse.

Coy, I have to say that I don't think David's comments were totally out of line. You may not like the strong language that he uses, labelling prophets as racists, etc, or the whole Mountain Meadows thing, but I don't think that the issues he brings up should just be dismissed. I've called past prophets racist as well. Heck, I'll say it again right now. Yes, I think that Brigham Young was a racist. I also think that prophets after him were racist. I also think that Ezra Taft Benson was an ultraconservative merely expressing his personal paranoid political views when he lambasted socialism. And lastly, although I don't personally think that Brigham Young was directly responsible for MMM, there is no way we will really ever know for sure 100%. There is historical "evidence" to support that he did, or didn't do it. But the fishy side of it won't be found in the Ensign or any other Church publications. Heck, I had never even heard of MMM until a couple of years ago. Maybe it's just because I'm not from UT.

So while David has a different view of the LDS Church than we do, and perhaps a different agenda (correct me if I'm wrong, David, but I'm assuming you're not here to help us strengthen our testimonies :), I also think that his comments can be a good learning experience to those of us who would rather bury our heads in the sand or -- worse yet -- constantly try to justify the racism that has been a part of our Church. I may not agree with David on everything, but I don't think it's always a bad thing when people try to shake things up a bit and force us to truly examine what it us that we believe in.

Steve said...

The way I see it, there are several legitimate reasons not to vote for Barack Obama in a week, but his ties to convicted felons (Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers) isn't one of them. Likewise, there are several reasons why I won't be joining most of my neighbors in voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin next week, but their ties to convicted felons (Charles Keating and now Ted Stevens) isn't one of them.

By its very nature, politics attracts shady characters like flies to a pile of you-know-what, and anyone holding just about any office for a significant length of time is bound to run into at least one of them. I don't think it's reasonable to expect politicans to request a background check on everyone they meet from Kindergarten on, and say "I don't want to know you" if anything fishy turns up.

Anonymous said...

Coy, you're missing the point. If you don't like me associating Brigham Young with Mountain Meadows--if you think that sort of thing is illegitimate--then why would you associate Barack Obama with William Ayres?

If I'm wrong, then you're wrong. If you want me to knock it off, then you knock it off. If you don't like me "bashing" your prophets, maybe you should stop bashing my candidate. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, and all that.

I'm an Obama supporter. You believe I should be calling him to account for his association with Ayres. Well, you're a Brigham Young supporter. I believe you should be asking questions about his association with Mountain Meadows.

BTW, everything I said while "bashing" your prophets is 100 percent true. But maybe you think that in the course of making my point I singled out your faith unfairly. If it makes you feel any better, I'll add that, let's see, Menachem Begin was a Jewish terrorist who bombed the King David Hotel and killed something like 50 British civilians. Ronald Reagan was buddy-buddy with him, so I guess that means Reagan was "palling around with terrorists." Heck, Martin Luther was a vicious anti-semite--take a look at his book On the Jews and Their Lies sometime--and yet his theology is taught in hundreds of seminaries across this great land! So I guess that means American Protestantism is morally suspect and we should think very, very carefully before electing a Protestant as president. At the very least, we should all be "extremely curious as to why [a Protestant candidate's] supporters don't seem to be calling [that candidate] to account for the inconsistencies and dismissed queries" on the matter of Protestant anti-semitism. And don't even get me started on the Polish and German churches' Nazi collaborations and silences during WWII.... And, let's see, what else? Reagan again! Didn't he support the Taliban? Now there's a religious organization whose prejudices make Benson's look tame....

"Close associations" with evil are everywhere, Coy, even in your own church. The question is, what conclusion can legitimately be drawn from them? And the answer is, From the associations themselves, NOTHING can be concluded about a particular person's character. Aah, but we can certainly imply a lot, eh? Wink wink.

Coy, maybe you expect me to believe that you were raising the question of Obama's association with Ayres merely as some objective academic exercise--rather than participating in a GOP exercise in assassinating the character of a fine man. Well, I don't buy it for a minute.

--David

Cameron said...

The problem people have with Obama's association will Bill Ayers is that Ayers is just one in a significant line of quite radical, leftist, influences Obama has had during his lifetime. From Frank Marshall Davis to John McKnight, to Saul Alinski, to ACORN, to Rev. Wright, to William Ayers, to just about everyone involved in Chicago politics, he's had quite the political upbringing.

Couple that with his own policies, his admittedly small voting record, and his pronouncements on wealth redistribution, and, yes, people have questions.

Coy said...

Thanks Cameron for some helpful comments. That's exactly my point. The points you brought up are the point of this discussion, not Davids negative agenda to bash the prophets. I'm asking about Obama = Politics. Perhaps someone can start another discussion about the prophets to help David have his happy place where he can bash the prophets, and bring up every little fact he can imagine, from MMM, to racism, to masonry, to... well I have heard them all bro. but Here, I hope we could discuss the candidates for president, which are the focus this election week.
So... if you claim McCain has terrorist ties, why is that not more important to the GOP? Like I said, I am not politically blind. If McCain is tied to terrorists, then please provide some legit background for us, a youtube link or reputable news story? I would be glad to discuss it, and yes, without a personal attack on something not related to Obama.
Why are these connections not more important to people? Why is Bush/Chenney and Halliburton connection not bothering people anymore.
Are we an apathetic people?
Thoughts?

Tanya Leigh said...

Sad, sad, SAD, SAD, sad.

Obama has been indoctrinated his entire LIFE to hate. Hate whites & hate free economics. He does NOT believe in the founding principles of our nation. That's why he wants to "CHANGE" everything, folks. (ask East Germans, Russians, & the Chinese how well they liked "spreading the wealth." THIS IS NOT THE USSA. WE ARE THE USA- AND WE WOULD LIKE TO STAY THAT WAY!

His ties with malitious people only solidify his aspirations. These are not just casual ties.

He lies. He lies WELL! He changes his song and dance to fit whatever audience he speaks to.

He is insulting Americans' intelligence by doing so. He knows the buzz-words people like to hear. He flat-out LIES to get out of a corner, on the hopes that the majority of the people watching, will not have the energy/intelligence to look it up and check his accuracy.

Please, guys. If the man had a shred of American pride & moral character, people would gladly elect him.

He does not.

We deserve better.

mfranti said...

i can't take your ignorant comments anymore.
stop!

i don't know what makes you look like a bigger fool, your hatful, angry tone or your actual uninformed, words.

just stop. if you are voting for mccain, then base your decisions based on his platform not the other guy.

all i hear from the right is talking points but no platform

just stop. make your vote (early) and let it be.

but stop with the hatred! there is no need to hate anyone.

mfranti said...

let me say this again,

barack obama, is a living human being. he has a wife and two daughters. he's been a faithful husband and a good man for all of his life.

john mccain has served this country for many years and despite his crappy campaign tactics, is underneath all of the bad decisons, a good man.

sarah palin is a capable govenor of AK and a family woman

all of these PEOPLE deserve to be spoken of as humans.

there is no reason to hate and speak with hatred about them. They, specifically Obama, has not ever hurt you and yours so there's no need for the vitriol.

it shows a lack of intellectual curiosity on your part when you are not willing to truly inform yourself outside of fox new and the like. it shows a lack of charity when you speak of someone as if they came into your home and hurt your family.

you don't know these people.

mfranti said...

oh, mfranti

independent voter from salt lake city

Coy said...

This campaign is ALL about analyzing the competitors. However, a few of you seem to want to make it personal against those of us making comments here. Who is a hater? My wife who is analyzing a presidential candidate on Politicalds or the person who calls HER an uninformed ignorant fool? Last I checked it wasnt US up for president?
Use your own advice and if you want to vote for Obama, do so based on his record (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_HZMD97nMw), and "let it be".
Why are you any better for saying those things aimed angrily at someone commenting here, than us keeping to our discussion of opinions on the candidates? Who is making this hateful? Personal?
Mercy Mercy Mercy folks. We are talking about presidential candidates.
Ignorance would be to NOT questions their intentions, abilities, and records.
I mean, Mercy mfranti? why are you not hypocritical while stating those harsh words personally to Tanya, while saying we should be kind to people we don't know.
hahahahaha. Ironic isnt it?

There goes your "platform"! hahaha.

As someone who frequents BOTH Fox and CNN, you can clearly see the divide. Most of us have seen info from both sides, and are pretty well informed. So lets lay off the hypocrisy and stick to productive speech about the election, eh?

So. Anyone else have any thoughts about THE CANDIDATES and their connections?
What about Cynthia McKinney and her story about the 5000 prisoners executed after Katrina. hahaha. With her "rumor" connections, if she were elected president, would we bomb Canada based on a story she heard about the Canadians killing Americans crossing the border or something! haha.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Well, I just read all the comments. After Coy's response, I went back and re-read mfranti's comments to double-check whether I had missed something.

You know, with perhaps the exception of the word "fool," I agree with everything else that mfranti said. I'm sorry, but I do think that Tanya's comment was both hateful and ignorant. It's been yet another reminder of how very, very far that America STILL has to go after all these years.

Tanya, if you knew anything about Obama's life and upbringing, you would know that he was raised by whites. His mother was white, his grandparents were white. His mother, despite being an unbeliever, dragged him to mass, synagogues, mosques, and exposed him to all the major religions. She also taught him to stand up to injustice, inequality and poverty. All that "hateful" stuff.

So then he grows up and finds the black church. Perhaps this is the "hate" and "indoctrination" you speak of? Go and research the black churches of America. Research Rev. Wright and see whether there is an ounce of truth to some of the things he preached about. You will find that under that nasty exterior of his, SOME of the things he preached are based on fact. And by automatically labelling his congregation as racist haters, you are contributing to the perpetuation of the hate cycle -- by denying that these black people have a legitimate reason to be outraged at their own gov't. White people are so quick to dismiss the accusations of blacks as just "hateful bitterness," when in fact they are totally ignorant to their plight.

Tanya, by bringing East Germany and the USSR into the picture, you are implying that Obama is a communist. I have news for you. None of these countries ever "spread the wealth around." All the wealth was centred in evil, corrupt gov'ts that didn't evenly distribute it, but rather supplied everyone with rations, long line-ups, and the bare minimum, while those at the top lived the high life. And on top of all that, they took away their freedom of speech and virtually every other right you can think of. THAT is NOT "spreading the wealth around." THAT is "hoarding the wealth and throwing a bone to the people."

I can't believe that some people still get sucked into this whole "Obama isn't patriotic, doesn't believe in the founding principles, hates whites, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, garbage." This sounds like one of those e-mails that circulates around and people like to go around professing it as truth. (Like that old lady who called Obama an Arab at one of McCain's rallies.) You see what you WANT to see and you believe what you WANT to believe. If it weren't so, then you would be able to say, as mfranti did, that all these candidates are essentially "good" people. McCain's policies I totally disagree with and I don't like his temperment. But I think he's a decent guy who endured terrible trials in his life, despite all his moral shortcomings. I don't think he hates anyone. I can't stand Sarah Palin's narrow view on issues, I don't think she's anywhere near being ready to run a country, and her personality bugs me. But I think she's also a decent person and a wonderful mother.

Tanya, your comment reminded me of a good friend of mine back home. She's not even American, but she has bought into all this anti-Obama propaganda to the point that she is literally losing sleep over the man. I love this woman dearly, she's a wonderful, compassionate person. But she's ignorant. She seriously thinks that Obama is out to shut down Rush Limbaugh (whom she loves) and confiscate everyone's guns. On top of that, (she is LDS), she has hinted that she thinks he is some sort of Anti-Christ. And how quickly everyone seems to forget that Obama is half-white and was raised by whites. By accusing him of being racist, you accuse him of hating both himself and those who raised him. Everyone refers to him as "a black man," when in fact that is only half-true. When I mentioned that fact to my African American sister-in-law (who is now mother of a bi-racial baby), she said, "Welcome to America."

You said:

"If the man had a shred of American pride & moral character, people would gladly elect him."

Well, I guess we'll know on Nov. 5 just how "glad" people were to elect him. I always think of that scripture, "by their fruits shall ye know them." Time will tell whether Obama really turns out to be Karl Marx or Malcolm X. If he becomes president and the white supremacists leave him alone for long enough, my hunch is that you're going to all wonder what was so scary about him in the first place.

But you are right about one thing, Tanya. You DO deserve better in America. You deserve a gov't that will provide all its citizens with basic rights and privileges; a gov't that will not plummet your country into a bogus war; a gov't that will make sure that the fat cats on Wall Street aren't going to run away with your retirement pension; a gov't that wants to do more to heal the racial divide and division of classes in America; and a gov't that recognizes that there is a big world outside of American borders, much of which resents America big-time, and wants to make more of a diplomatic effort to keep the peace.

The Faithful Dissident said...

In regards to that Youtube link that Coy posted:

"The October 5, 2008 broadcast of Hannity's America entitled Obama & Friends: The History of Radicalism presented Andy Martin as an expert on Barack Obama without noting Martin's political stances and history of anti-Semitism. Fox News and the show drew criticism from multiple media outlets. The New York Times described it as "the latest step in the evolution of opinion journalism on cable news", and it went on to say the broadcast was "notable in presenting partisan accusations against Mr. Obama in a journalistic, documentary format in prime time." Fox News Vice President Bill Shine has since stated that, in his opinion, featuring Martin was a mistake."

-Wikepedia

Coy said...

Such a double standard you have. Still calling names and saying people don't know about things. FD, in the same breath you try to silence Tanya for criticizing Obama and his moral character, and then you throw in your own judgment of McCain "I think he's a decent guy ... despite all his moral shortcomings." You yourself have placed a moral judgment on them.
Lets talk about Obama's Moral character.

Truth: Obama worked closely with Ayers many year
Obama's lie: Ayers is just'a guy who lives in my neighborhood."

Truth: Obama agreed to use public financing as his source of contributions
Obama's Lie: He backed out and broke a record in fund raising this week. BROKE HIS PROMISE.

Truth: Obama stated he could no more disown the radical Wright than he could disown his own mother or grandmother.
Obama's lie: He changed his tune again and disowned Wright soon after

Truth: Obama accepted much more money from Rezko than admitted ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9049.html )
Obama's Truth: First he states he recieved a little, then comes back and admits when convenient that, well, actually it was more.

I could go on and on. McCain is not free of lies, and I dont stand my him either. But when it comes to moral character, I dont trust Obama any more than I trust Robert Hanssen, a terrible FBI traitor. (should we mention for you racist card players than Hansen is white.) As someone who loves Black culture, and has secretly wished all my life to have been born black, I couldn't care less about Obama's color, this pres. race is not about race. Its about who would serve best.
(by the way, Wikipedia is of no valid reference, I have contributed there myself, you may be quoting me for all you know. And NY times, seriously, not a great way to judge the right)
So, FD, you say we deserve better, someone "that will make sure that the fat cats on Wall Street aren't going to run away with your retirement pension"... go back and watch the CSPAN coverage of the Freddie/Fanny hearings. It was Obamas henchmen and the Democrats who defended them when the Republicans were raising the red flags. I have seen those hearings, not biased by pundits. There is no denying who ignored the warnings. So when you allude to Obama being able to stop the problems, well, he had the chance to do so back then. Chose not to.
When you state that we deserve to not be led into "bogus war", do you remember that Obama already has threatened to invade Pakistan? NO, fox didnt tell me, I heard it live myself.
In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention, Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success. Now he changes his views CONVENIENTLY. Where is his moral character? Where is the solid rock in the storm?
With Obama, I see nothing but a ship tossed in the billowing seas, swayed with every wind of doctrine resounding in his ears.
You can defend it all you want, but it remains the same. Facts speak. You are welcome to argue that McCain is not much better, but as I said, I am not a McCain lover, so I might just join you. ;)
But so long as the Americans can overlook the warning signs of Obama, for whatever reasons, we stand to reap when we sow. To God we pray that Obama does a good job, and if he wins, I hope he does. But if ANY of these warning signs turn out to be true, (much like the collapse of the markets after Democrats fought the warnings there), will CNN remain behind him? Will the liberal sided media continue to back him when he fails? I predict we will see a large turn when/if his media supporters find out they were wrong. We might see them pointing fingers at each other with headlines like "Did America see the warning signs?"
or
"Were the red flags ignored?"
Heaven help us, that we wont ever experience it. But for those who ignore the warnings, and the flags, and who back Obama anyways, there may be hard times ahead when the "world tests the meddle of this man" and the international crisis predicted by his own running mate brings our country to utmost crisis.
For those of us who see the warnings as overwhelming, I hope we are wrong.
(by the way, this is a great ad campaign... for those who aren't only tuned into NY times or CNN I guess ;)
http://neverfindout.org/

The Faithful Dissident said...

The "moral shortcomings" I was referring to was the fact that McCain cheated on his wife. To me, it doesn't really matter. It's between him and his wife, he's admitted he made mistakes, that's it. I can support a candidate who has a problem with sexual morality if he can do his job well. It's irrelevant to me otherwise. So yes, McCain (like all humans, including Obama) has moral shortcomings. A lot of Repulicans like to point the moral slivers in the eyes of Democrats, and vice versa, when in fact they're all missing the enormous beams in their own eyes.

We all know that Obama worked with Ayers on that committee. Obama has said it himself. Where is the lie there? Were they secretly plotting to blow up the Pentagon together?

I don't consider Wikipedia to be infallible. But if that citation about that Hannity show is wrong, please tell us why. If this Martin guy isn't an anti-Semite, then please let us know. But if even the FOX News VP thinks it was a bad idea featuring Martin, then that doesn't say much.

As for all the Mormon Republicans who are quick to point the finger at Obama for disowning/not disowning Wright, all I can say is that we of all people should know how hard it is to be a member of a Church that has been involved in racist teachings. If Obama hadn't disowned Wright, everyone would have said, "See, he agrees with Wright, so he must be a racist too!" So then when he does distance himself from the guy, people say, "Look how he flip-flopped on his loyalties, what a liar!" Honestly, what would you have done in his situation? If you were running for president, would you uphold the racist teachings of past prophets, or the fact that Joseph Smith married young girls, both of which are really indefensible in the eyes of the world? Would you be willing to defend to the world the most controversial aspects of Mormonism? Or would you have distanced yourself from our church's past? I'm sure you'd like to think that you have the moral strength to stand up and defend your religion under such intense scrutiny and announce to the world your loyalty to the prophet. I don't know, maybe you do. In that case, you're above even Mitt Romney, who called polygamy "bizarre." Gee, it sounds like Obama isn't the only one throwing his religious leaders under the bus, if you want to look at it that way.

Guess what, Coy, no person or politician is perfect. Obama has made mistakes and he will certainly make them again if he's president. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being totally unrealistic. I certainly think that some of the criticisms are fair. You point to all this Fanny and Freddie business, the Pakistan comments, all that is fair game. Go ahead and criticize the policies and experience of all the candidates. That's a good thing! But when Tanya implies that Obama hates whites and comes with some bogus statement like Obama has been "indoctrinated his entire life to hate," as she put it, or that some comment about "spreading the wealth around" means that the US is going to become a communist regime like "East Germany" or "China," as Tanya gave examples of, then that's where it's just getting ridiculous. It's fair game to say that Wright racist and to therefore question Obama's involvement in his church. That's absolutely fair. But to say that he was indoctrinated "his whole life" to hate whites -- especially since he is half white and was raised by white people -- is paranoid and ignorant. If you want to criticize the fact that Obama is going to increase taxes sharply on those who make 250 grand + per year and "spread the wealth" of those taxes to giving everyone health care and certain benefits, then that's also entirely fair, because those are the REAL ISSUES. But for Tanya to insinuate that that constitutes a communist regime like East Germany or China is also paranoia and ignorance. And then to top it off with "If the man had a shred of American pride & moral character" is inflating the paranoia to gargantuan proportions by making him sound like some treasonist who hasn't got an ounce of decency. As much as I immensely disagree with most of what he has done, I wouldn't even say that is a fair statement about Bush!

The Faithful Dissident said...

You know, I don't know what's more scary. Living in communist China, or living among people like this.

My dad is convinced that someone is going to assassinate Obama if he wins. I used to tell him that he has to quit being such a pessimist. Now I'm just holding my breath.

mfranti said...

thanks for making my blood pressure rise, fd.

sigh. it hurts that we have people in america angry like that.

why not turn that anger of obama into anger of our health care system? too many people go bankrupt because they got sick.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I gotta hand it to Americans. They sure know how to put on a show when it comes to election time. European politics is a major snoozer compared to this stuff. :)

big.bald.dave said...

More fun was had at a McCain rally here.

A good friend of mine who is black supports Obama, though he supported Edwards in the primary and still prefers Clinton. He is very worried that he will be assassinated, and this was a major reason he did not vote for Obama in the primary. Of course, assassinations and assassination attempts are not uncommon among US Presidents - 4 (almost 10%) have been killed while in office, and at least 17 were subject to serious attempts on their lives. What an incredibly tragic event an Obama assassination would be!

BTW, FD, thank you for dragging this thread back to some semblance of sanity.

Obama has been indoctrinated his entire LIFE to hate. Hate whites & hate free economics. He does NOT believe in the founding principles of our nation.

Tanya, I love ya, but seriously, this is absolute madness, not to mention complete conjecture and speculation. Yet, you state it as fact. I think you would probably have a hard time hating black people if the two people who lovingly raised you were black.

Coy said...

HAHA, I loved that video. Thanks heavens we are not voting for the supporters of candidates, or I guess we could vote for Hamas for president.
Seriously, are you guys so absorbed by Tanya's free speech that you can't let it go? Why are you so absorbed in her opinions and conclusions (which I happen to personally know she is well informed and researched). On a blog so dominated from the left, she bravely threw out a rant about her fears about Obama, which many of us share. We could bash her all day long for her thoughts, are we going to get anywhere?
Nothing we have brought up about Obama is unimportant. Media have swept much under the rug now, but it is not hidden for many of us.
Look, Obama tells in his own words that his Mother was a racist, she was scared of blacks on the street, she had to overcome it, and he had to reckon with a confused position on race his whole life... big deal, but YES, as a 20 year student of Wright he HAS been indoctrinated his whole life, and much to hate "white America". I have spent a lot of time reviewing Obama speech and interviews, and he RARELY if ever can bee seen saying anything GOOD about USA. Tanya is sooo right about this. His wife Michele even shared her views, which we all know she was never proud of America until now. What?
Have you ever heard Obama say anything GOOD about America without saying the word "But..." followed by all the reasons he has no pride for USA? Wait, wasn't he showing pride when he refused to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem? No.
Having lived in many other countries, Tanya and I have a GREAT idea of what USA pride is. Her dramatic speech comes from personal experience seeing life from outside the states, and seeing how ungrateful we are for that free dramatic speech.
Her strong words are in the same ballgame (but much more reasonable) than say, Davids and FD comments about our prophets being racists. Should we waste our energy with loads of posts about how we can't bear YOUR ignorant speech? Should I waste my time giving you the gratification of pushing buttons (which is your only goal) instead of productive discussion? ALL of your validity runs right through the cracks when you began calling names from the start. Misrepresenting Joseph Smith like you have will surely make you feel better, I bet. How about you give us some evidence of what you claim instead of name calling, while condemning Tanya for the like. Lets have some productive discussion here, instead of hypocritic double standards.
I would like to see some evidence as to why Obamas "Lies and Ties" dont matter. Do you have any? How EASY it is to brush it aside and call anyone questioning it "Intolerant" or "Racist" or "Hater" etc.
Let me be a little sarcastic for a second... Yes, I see where you are coming from! Obama does have every sign of a good man! Most good men I know keep company with past terrorists. Most good men I know allow terrorists to fund their education. Most good men I know also tell a lot of lies to get where they want. Most good men I know have little good to say about our great country THEY WANT TO LEAD. Yes... most great men I know are involved with criminals like Rezko, and hide it until convenient to bring out the details. Yes yes, most good men I know belong to a church and LOVE the pastor who curses America.. or in Rev. Wrights words "Not God Bless America, God DAMN America". YES! Most good men I know say those things or at least love the men who say them. Most good men I know FIGHT against the right of babies while they lie dieing in the hospital wastebasket after a botched abortion. YES, good men do that all the time, because good men want to protect the rights of women to kill their babies when they accidentally survive an abortion. (ps. dont even get me started on this one, I am a health care professional, and I assure you, its best left for another discussion.) Yes, good men I know are very into protecting the rights of people, except babies of course. Most good men I know did drugs in College, like it was no big whoop. Most good men I know looked to communist writers for advice and direction. Most good men I know have people like Louis Farrakhan call them a "Messiah"! That's because most good men I know are loved by those who hate Jews, whites, America etc. Yes, most good men I know think we should take kids as young as 5 and teach them SEX ED. they need it these days at age 5 right? Because all parents out there are asking for the government to teach their kids sex at age 5, right? uh, right?
Yes, Most good men I know Lie about their childhood to get peoples emotions rolling. Like the Selma March lies, those are common types of lies in good men.
Yes, I can see why Tanya is out of line for emotionally speaking concern about such a "GOOD" man!
(end sarcasm)
How do you call Tanya ignorant in light of SOOO many concerning issues? This is OUR America, you and I. We better get it right you you and I both will have to pay for our choices.
Again, that video was awesome! hahaha. But, There are just as many folks from that video on the left as on the right. Go to an Obama rally and you will see the same thing, as I said, thank heavens we are not voting for the supporters. lol.
Anyone actually have compelling reasons why these concerns are so easily brushed away by left news media?
(oh, and may I predict more name calling at me or Tanya now, as we are the only conservative voices being spoken here, and you have no better argument for these concerning issues than to target us personally as (ironically)"ignorant" or "uninformed". hahaha)

The Wizzle said...

Yes, we've all got the right to free speech. But I don't have to agree with it.

We can disagree without it being equated to personal attacks, surely? Calling a comment uninformed does not equate to calling the person who made it, altogether, uninformed or otherwise bad. Anyone can say something stupid, we all do it all the time!

I, personally, think it is wise to examine all available information about a candidate and make one's own decision about who to support. Hence, I have no problem with Coy's original post. I have made the decision for myself that a person's own speech and actions is worth more to me than the speech and actions of the people they associate with, or even consider to be friends. I've got many friends who believe some things that I very strongly disagree with - don't you? They have hosted baby showers for me, been entrusted with the care of my children, loaned me money, worked with me professionally and closely. That doesn't mean we are equivalent, or that I am incapable of holding my own beliefs in opposition to theirs.

Tanya, you don't have to vote for Obama. I would never try to convince you to when I can see by your own words and actions that you have already given it a lot of thought and that you are passionate about your position. But I have seen no indication in the man's speech or behavior that he "hates whites" or "hates capitalism". As was previously mentioned, and I would have assumed would be common knowledge at this point, he was raised by his white mother so that comment in particular seems to be really grasping at straws. Think about your own life: what has influenced your thinking and belief system more - your mother, or a professional associate you met later in life, no mater how close? This kind of statement saddens me, and causes me to believe that we really do still have a very long way to go with regard to race relations even in this "modern" age.

And I only wish that people reliably voted for people with "American pride and moral character"! I assume that when you say "people" would gladly elect Obama if he demonstrated these characteristics, you mean "you" would vote for him in that case, because it looks like the American people are in all likelihood going to elect him next week, with or without your approval.

So that, in a nutshell, Coy (welcome to the board, by the way! :)) is why I personally was upset by Tanya's comment. I know her personally, and have for many years, and I know her to be a good person. Yet I disagreed strongly with that comment - all of it - and I felt compelled to say so.

The point of this site as I understand it is to demonstrate that Mormons have widely varying political views and to provide a forum for us to learn from each other and foster positive discussions. We're not here to persuade each other to our views - at least, I'm not. We're not here to admonish each other or to one-up each other. I don't post much right now because I am very busy, and it makes my heart hurt to take my precious "free time" and come here and see so much nitpicking and defensiveness. We can't learn anything from each other if we can't be wrong periodically.

The Wizzle said...

Oh, and I forgot to say:

I am not entirely satisfied with the way Obama has dealt with these accusations of Ayers and Wright and whoever else exerting undue influence on him, or perpetrating their own agendas through him. But I don't know what I would do if I were in that situation, I really don't. If people were saying that my friends were radical leftists and communists (and some of them are!) and that I had to disown those people or risk ruining my career and my reputation, I don't know what I would do. I might publically make a statement condemning their actions, but it would not change the way I actually felt or what I actually believed. Since it wouldn't make a difference in my heart, I might say it to put at ease the minds of the people I was hoping to serve.

I might.

I don't really know. Personally, I don't know if there is a "good" way to respond to what I consider to be largely irrelevant accusations such as "he smoked pot!" or "he is friends with people who hold radical political views!" I would venture to say that a very large percentage of the American public would fall into one or both of those categories so it seems like a moot point to me. But that's my personal assessment of the situation, and I recognize that others would arrive at a different conclusion. And they wouldn't necessarily be "wrong", how about that? :)

Anonymous said...

Hi. Well, I have to agree with Wizzle - with the election coming on, this has become kind of a hostile environment, right? I guess I don't have much to say. I'm overtly pessimistic about presidential candidates. I agree with something Wizzle said earlier - that is, anyone capable of waking up one morning and saying, "I really want to be the next leader of the free world - I think I'd do a great job...." - and then do whatever it takes to ensure that happens...well, that person a) has my condolences. and b) doesn't have my trust. So I have a very hard time voting for president.

I must say, however, that I agree with very little of the attacks that have been lodged here. Lets just admit, that anyone who wants to rise to the position these guys are in have done some shady untrustworthy stuff to get there. It's just how the system works. So, yes, some of it has been underhanded. Some of it has been nauseating - from both sides - that's how it works, folks. Oh well.

I think Obama will be elected president - I don't think that will be as negative a thing as some would think (the only thing that worries me is him cutting military funding and me being 60 miles from the DMZ.)

Honestly, none of the "fears" about terrorist ties have been sufficient to get me concerned about Obama's presisidancy more than I am concerned about any regime change or political upheaval. The guy will probably do fine - at least no worse than G.W. Life goes on.

Tanya - well, you know me - I am all about socializing a bit - not much, but a bit - so, that particular obama-punch doesn't really hurt much -

One thing about David and FD's comments, though, Coy - FD particularly was not interested in pushing buttons - she was speaking historically and fairly, and there is no use calling her out on that. David has a unique perspective and I value his presence here, though it can come off a bit shocking. He doesn't make personal attacks on living people, though.

Seriously, though guys, calling people foolish or biggoted or ignorant is not called for - at the same time, criticize positions -that is what debate is all about. I would suggest both sides avioding political accusations or inflamitory media that gets that gets people on a mass level paranoid and worked up about something that really will probably isn't that big of a problem - because then group mentality comes into play, and as FD's video showed, in most instances of passionate group mentality, human beings begin to talk, think and act like caged animals.

btw - we are no longer a left-dominated forum - with the addition of Coy, we have 4 on each side again - so balance has been restored - however, in commentors, we still seem to be quite left-dominated. For some reason, we have had a hard time keeping conservative LDS commentors around. Not sure why that is...:)

The Faithful Dissident said...

OK, Coy, you lost me at the baby killing and sex-ed for kindergartners. Check your facts (political ads do not equal fact).

I feel like arguing all the points you made would be a waste of my time, especially since the independent sites such as factcheck have already taken the time to refute most of the claims that you have made. Some of them are just personal opinion based on emotion and personal observation. You think Obama is unpatriotic, etc. That is your view and you're entitled to it. Nothing any of us can say will change it, so let's leave it at that.

I will, however, take the time to correct you on one thing. You said:

"Her strong words are in the same ballgame (but much more reasonable) than say, Davids and FD comments about our prophets being racists. Should we waste our energy with loads of posts about how we can't bear YOUR ignorant speech? Should I waste my time giving you the gratification of pushing buttons (which is your only goal) instead of productive discussion? ALL of your validity runs right through the cracks when you began calling names from the start. Misrepresenting Joseph Smith like you have will surely make you feel better, I bet. How about you give us some evidence of what you claim instead of name calling, while condemning Tanya for the like. Lets have some productive discussion here, instead of hypocritic double standards."

I am an active, faithful (mostly) Mormon. But I call it when I see it. Some of our prophets and leaders were racists. There is simply no other way to say it. Yes, they may have been good men, simply a product of the era in which they were raised, they may have been God's true prophets. Still, they were racists. An examination of older official church literature or the works of reputable LDS scholars will quickly bring to light ugly comments and teachings from past leaders. To deny this is either the result of you never being informed of it (which is possible, since it's a topic that not many Mormons like to bring up and it's certainly not discussed in Sunday School), or simply an attempt at burying the past.

You also accused me of misrepresenting Joseph Smith. Apparently you have not read "Rough Stone Rolling," which was well-received by both sides of the issue of Joseph Smith and is probably considered to be the most accurate and well-researched biography of Joseph Smith to date. Research Fanny Alger and the others. Then come back and tell me in what way I "misrepresented" Joseph Smith.

If "pushing buttons" is really my "only goal," as you suggest, then what am I doing in this church? I'd be having more fun hanging out with anti-Mormons.

Coy said...

FD says: "OK, Coy, you lost me at the baby killing and sex-ed for kindergartners. Check your facts (political ads do not equal fact)."

My pleasure.

http://www.bornalivetruth.org/

and,

Lets take this one from your own left wing CNN, who calls is "True, but incomplete." (in true liberal fashion, always throwing in the "BUT" on the liberal facts.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/30/fact-checkdoes-obama-support-sex-education-for-kindergartners/

Tanya Leigh said...

So, you all are having fun talking about me now. :P Sheesh Louise!

Sorry.

Wizzle (gee, it's funny to address you as that :), I am sorry if I made anyone feel I was racist?? There is nothing that could be further from my heart. ALL people are children of our Heavenly Father. I know that ALL people have within them capacity for good. I only speak of the tenor of speech Obama has been surrounded by for the greater part of his life.

Like Coy has stated, someone who knows, is friends with, and accepts money from "bad" people could very likely be "alright". But, "alright" isn't going to be good enough for someone in the Oval Office. Especially in times like today where terrorists are ready to pounce on the US.

I wouldn't fear Obama as an individual, by any means. But I DO fear his connections in accordance with the United States' security & future.

And because THIS is the topic of THIS post. I will leave it there.

mfranti said...

about the sex ed stuff.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/712/

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/710/

The Wizzle said...

Tanya, what I meant by my concern about race relations is that I think the different cultures, largely, really don't understand each other very well. The fact that some black preachers have this very harsh rhetoric that nonetheless speaks to some people of color, and it's very threatening to "white" people (I use all these terms loosely, mainly "white" to mean people who self-identify as such, because there is such mixture among the "races" at this point that really, it's about how one self-identifies. Which makes the whole situation even more nebulous and "racism" even more pointless, but that's another post I suppose...)

I'm not talking specifically about Obama, or Reverend Wright - just using the example that because Obama is friends with Reverend Wright, he therefore hates whites. That's the only basis I could figure that comment based based on, please correct me if I am wrong. Then we feel Obama needs to be defended by saying "but his mother is white!" which is supposed to make us all feel safer. LIke you hear people saying "he's Muslim!" and then it's countered with "no, he's Christian!" Which he is, but the point is (as Colin Powell kindly brought to our attention once again) that it's *OK* to be Muslim. It's *OK* to be Black, and to embrace that and to have friends of all stripes, just as it's ok for Whites to have friends of all stripes. We don't necessarily need to fear each other because we are strangers, metaphorically speaking.

If the comment had been framed in the terms you used in that last message, I would have had no problem with it. :)

Coy said...

By the way...
You keep referring to factcheck.org.
Just how valid and unbiased do you expect us to believe that site is?
Factcheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Foundation, where Ayers and Obama were working together handling millions of their dollars.

No conflict of interest there, right?

Now just why is this a more reliable source about Obama?

mfranti said...

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.


Brooks Jackson

mfranti said...

anyone watch the television film?

i haven't seen(yw's) it but read about it on the NYT

Stephanie said...

No, I was at YW, too.

The Faithful Dissident said...

"FD says: "OK, Coy, you lost me at the baby killing and sex-ed for kindergartners. Check your facts (political ads do not equal fact)."

My pleasure.

http://www.bornalivetruth.org/

and,

Lets take this one from your own left wing CNN, who calls is "True, but incomplete." (in true liberal fashion, always throwing in the "BUT" on the liberal facts.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/30/fact-checkdoes-obama-support-sex-education-for-kindergartners/"

First of all, Coy, I learned a valuable lesson when it comes to the subject of abortion. Both sides twist things big time. We had a very interesting discussion about partial birth abortion last week and I learned a lot. By no means am I an abortion supporter, but I've learned that you can't get the facts or the truth from sites affiliated with either side (such as the link you posted). The subject of abortion is so inflammatory that each side -- particularly the anti-abortion side, it seems to me -- tends to leave out pertinent details that they know could sway people's opinions. Go to any of the independent fact-checking sites and read about Born Alive. You'll see that Obama voted against that bill because he viewed as a backdoor attempt to attack Roe vs. Wade, as well as the fact that an Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support." So let's not turn this into a discussion about abortion. I continue to support the Church's stance (which I'm sure you do as well), but I have found out that the subject of abortion is not quite as black and white as many want to make it out to be.

As for the kindergarten sex-ed thing, go back and read your own link, from beginning to end. I don't even need to argue anything more because that link sums it up perfectly. The "true but incomplete" part is actually referring to McCain's attack ad. The "true" part is that yes, Obama wanted to teach kindergarten kids something. The "incomplete" part refers to the incomplete twisted truth that McCain's ad was in the first place. How teaching kids about sexual predators came to equal "comprehensive sex education" is beyond me.