Why Nobama

[denuseri]

This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view a variety of news sorces not just MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking "where did the money come from for Obama".

I started looking into Obama's life.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. "Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.

During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? ! Nether I, nor any one of my middle class friends would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.

By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association". About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School.

Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for LawSchool? More student loans?

After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented "Rezar" which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran f! or offi ce in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things".

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?

And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith". When questioned, "he make a mistake". Some mistake!

All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times -September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this?

A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - "Beware of the enemy from within"!!!

[Ragoczy]

There's a lot of stuff floating around out there about Obama either being a Muslim or being tied to Muslims -- neither of which I'd particularly have a problem with -- but the "being" has no evidence to back it up and the "ties" are fairly circumstantial. The "my Muslim faith" comment is reasonably explained by a simple slip of the tongue -- common on a long campaign; he was, after all, talking about Muslim and

Christian at the same time, and it's common for people to make a slip like that. I think if there really was something there, then the mainstream media, "tingly feelings down their legs when he talks" and all, wouldn't ignore it. It's possible to make a lot of connections and suppositions when viewing the entirety of someone's life, especially when they and their family have traveled as widely as Obama has. A friend of ours forwarded an email alleging that Obama's father is only very little Black, and primarily of Arab descent. I have to admit that this, coupled with Obama's refusal to release his birth certificate, makes me wonder a bit -- and curious to what the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton reaction would be if it were found that America's first "Black" President's birth certificate listed only Caucasian and Arab parentage.

But, if true, should all of that make a difference to us? I'd argue that if he is Muslim, it speak ill of anyone who refused to vote for him solely for that reason. What we have to remember, and possibly keep harshly reminding ourselves in these times, is that we are not at war with the Muslim faith or Muslims in general. We are in a battle against isolated, radical sects within Islam that hate us (the free, secular West) -- and even within that group that hates us, we're only really at war with those relatively few who want to kill us and actively try.

When we object to Muslims in general or hold their faith against them, we (Americans) are violating one of the fundamental precepts of our country's founding. We may legitimately object to them trying to impose those beliefs on others or when thier practice infringes on the rights of others, but simply having a different faith shouldn't bar one from public office so long as first in the execution of that office is held the nation's fundamental precepts.

Keith Ellison is the first Muslim to be elected to Congress and there was a certain, small but vocal, segment of the population that objected to his being sworn in on the Quran, fools; in my opinion, since forcing a Muslim to swear an oath on the Bible seems self-defeating if you want him to actually feel bound by that oath.

Personaly, I find enough to object to about Obama without supposition about his faith. And less than a year ago I was seriously considering voting for him -- my reason being that the damage of his policies might be light enough to be offset by the benefit to race-relations in having a Black President. But upon looking into his actual positions and actions, I found too much I object to.

In policy, I fundamentally disagree with most of his positions.

His proposed increases in entitlement programs will effectively double what's being spent on Social Security and Medicare -- and we know how well they've worked out. Socialized medicine doesn't work anywhere that it's been tried -- primarily because government is only good at two things: killing people and blowing things up, everything else they fuck up beyond recognition, and neither of those two things is conducive to quality health care.

His tax policies are confiscatory. The tax power of government is to pay for government services not social "fairness". He actually admits that his tax policy would lower revenue to the government (raising capital gains) and potentially harm the economy -- but he wants to do it anyway in the name of "fairness".

Regardless of one's stance on whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, we're there -- and his stated willingness to abandon twenty-five million people to terrorists and sectarian violence, I find reprehensible. Even if you think the mess is all our fault, doesn't that mean we should try to help the Iraqis clean it up? Even a vacuum

In the midst of this financial idiocy, I think it's ridiculous to even consider making President someone who managed to take more money from two of the biggest offenders in just three years than anyone else did in twenty (save Chris Dodd, who's still number one).

I object to his cordial associations with Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers. The company we keep says something about us and if someone I knew, personally or professionally, was a terrorist, proud of it, and only regretted he hadn't blown more shit up, I'd have nothing more to do with him and I'd publicly excoriate him.

I could go on further, but my point is: there are plenty of proven, documented reasons to oppose Obama without resorting to supposition.

[gagged_Louise]

Well, concerning Obama's college gap year round-the-world tour, it's not that difficult to raise money to get out on a long trek abroad. I have buddies who have been to China, India and South America, all staying for months (not on student grants). One friend did a summer round trip to Greece,Turkey, Iran, Georgia and Turkmenistan before flying home over Russia, being out about seven weeks. It wasn't that expensive and he didn't work in any of those countries to raise money on the way, nor smuggle drugs, nor did he have a string of pre-set up arrangements for hospitality; he mostly stayed in low-range hotels. I have no idea how much of a backpacker Obama was but it's been possible ever since WW2 to travel cheap for young people. I don't think those costs need to have been prohibitive. And he obviously had free accomodation much of the time.

The idea that Obama is a "cloaked muslim" is laughable I think, but it's true that both Obama and McCain are unlike most earlier US presidents (and recent presidential/VP nominees I think) in that their growing-up and background directly mirrors that the USA is still an immigrant country (Obama) and that some people growing up in the US spend a sizable part of those years abroad (both of them). John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone.and followed his dad to a number of naval posts around the US and the Pacific; Obama stayed in Indonesia, age 6 to 10.

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things".

Hamas is more than merely a league of bomb-throwers and a terrorist organization though in US news it's often portrayed only as such. They won the election in January 2006 on the Palestinian areas, and they have thorough support from ordinary people on the ground; long before 2006 they would promote many local social activities (sports, schooling, food support to the poor) in Gaza where the Israelis would do nothing of the kind. It's true they don't recognize Israel and that they probably support acts of terrorism even now, but I think you have to weigh in that they are at war anyway and represent a people who have been embroiled in a running conflict over their own existence for sixty years. After Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated in 1995, the Israelis have not been a very fruitful counterpart in this conflict either, in my opinion they have been downright abrasive much of the time and acting with gross disregard for human life and dignity, and of the need for giving any kind of options to the leadership on the Palestinian side.

National Public Radio, a non-commercial broadcaster in the U.S summed it up in these words: "Israel and many Western powers have struggled with how best to interact with a group that is at once labeled terrorist and, at the same time, is the legitimately elected leadership of the Palestinian National Authority.". I would pretty much exclude "Israel" from that statement as the latest Israeli governments would like nothing better than to see Hamas crash and burn pure and simple, but it's true that they are the legit representatives of the Palestinian people under free and fair.elections. Have to remember though that they don't really have the kind of power and bureaucratic control that you can count on in a normal government, because Palestine isn't really a full state, rather a semi-state, a kind of troubled "home rule" arrangement.

There's nothing strange about Mr. Malley having had meetings with people from Hamas, and some government ministers, many local political people and university teachers in Europe have done the same..For the record, I do support Israel's right to exist securely in peace but they need to get down out of their tree, you know. Their attitude that "we can do anything and you can't get us cause we have the US behind us, ta-ta" is getting disastrous. I hope an Obama White House could help engineer a more reasonable positioning here, both with the Israelis and the Palestinians.

[denuseri]

It is certianly not his religion I am against, get real people, I am a half Lebanonse Jew, raised as a Lutheran that converted to Bahai, (also probably one of the last people of jewish desent born in Beruit thanks to Hamas and thier ilk).

As for Hamas and or the legitamancy of terroist orginizations, talk to me about them after your people have been brutalized and pushed off the land they lived on for many generations for no other reason that thier religion.

If Brittian hadnt mis-managed the whole situation during the transition in the 1940's and 50's the whole region would be different.

But of course the thing between Lebanon and Isreal has nothing to do in the slightest with the thread topic and why Obama has been lieing.

Which is my main beef with Obama: he lies about so much about so many things, including his back door dealings with the enemies of western civilization.

[Euryleia]

This piece has already been debunked at snopes.com. An almost word for hoax email is going around with smears about Obama. Check this out: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp

"The above-quoted piece combines a good deal of supposition and some elaborate conspiracy theory to question exactly where Senator Barack Obama obtained the money for his education and the purchase of a house in Chicago in 2005. The answers are fairly straightforward.

As both Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, have noted many times, they paid for their educations via scholarships and student loans/, in the process (like many people) incurring debts which were not fully paid off until many years later. (In the Obamas' case, it was the revenue derived from Barack's pair of best-selling books that finally allowed them to retire their student loan debts.)

Likewise, the Obamas' financing of their house in Chicago was no mystery. As their tax returns demonstrate, the couple had a significant jump in income from 2000 onwards (largely from royalties on book sales), and they purchased their Chicago home in 2005, a year in which their combined income was $1.6 million.

[Ragoczy]

Likewise, the Obamas' financing of their house in Chicago was no mystery. As their tax returns demonstrate, the couple had a significant jump in income from 2000 onwards (largely from royalties on book sales), and they purchased their Chicago home in 2005, a year in which their combined income was $1.6 million.

One does have to wonder, though, about the events surrounding that home purchase.

Obama buys a property for $300,000 below the asking price -- not a bad deal. On the same day, Tony Rezko buys the adjacent parcel from the same seller for the asking price. I have to wonder how an experienced real estate developer pays list while Obama is able to bargain the price down by several hundred thousand dollars.

Rezko and Obama toured both properties together -- Obama has publicly stated this. And the accepted offer was the third he made. So Obama and Rezko get along well enough to tour real estate together, but they don't talk about the offer each will make? And an experienced real estate developer doesn't bargain, doesn't make a lower offer?

[Euryleia]

Well, if you check Fact Check.org the issue is is a pretty real estate deal for both of them.

Here is the gist:
Million-Dollar Mansion

As for that claim about Rezko helping Obama buy his house, well, we've dealt with that one before. The gist of the story: In 2005, Barack and Michelle Obama found a house that they wanted to purchase. The property had been divided into two parcels, one containing a house and the other undeveloped land. The owner had listed the properties separately. After considerable haggling, the seller accepted the Obamas' third bid of $1.65 million for the parcel containing the house. Tony Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining lot for $625,000.

When the Obamas wanted to increase the size of their yard, they approached the Rezkos about purchasing a strip of the adjacent parcel. Obama told the Sun-Times that a 10-foot strip of the 60-foot lot appraised for $40,000. The Obamas nevertheless paid Rita $104,500 (or 1/6 of the total purchase price of her lot) for the strip. In 2007, Rita sold the remaining lot for $575,000 (or roughly a $54,500 profit on the overall property).

McCain's ad is worded in a way that could leave a false impression. It says Rezko "helped him buy his million-dollar mansion" by "purchasing part of the property he couldn't afford." That's true, but only because the seller wanted to sell the two parcels as a unit and the Obamas couldn't afford both. Rezko did not make a gift of any property to the Obamas. Furthermore, the fact that his wife sold her lot for more than she paid for it contradicts any suggestion that the Rezkos overpaid for their part of the deal as a way of getting the seller to lower the price to the Obamas for their part.

[Ragoczy]

Rezko did not make a gift of any property to the Obamas. Furthermore, the fact that his wife sold her lot for more than she paid for it contradicts any suggestion that the Rezkos overpaid for their part of the deal as a way of getting the seller to lower the price to the Obamas for their part.

It doesn't contradict anything -- some profit on real estate during that time of huge increases in value is to be expected.

The fact remains that Rezko didn't even bargain on the price of their property, the property (based on the reports I've read) is too small to build on and they sold it to their own attorney.

It's that only one of the transactions was discounted from the asking price that bothers me. In my opinion, it smells.

If the two of us go to buy cars together and we strike a bargain with the dealer, but I pay MSRP and you take all of the bargained discount on your deal, is it a gift?

That's what this transaction feels like to me.

[mkemse]

Acutaly Rezko, donated to alot of Campaigns both Democrats and Republicans both in Illinois and out of Illinois
Is it also possible at the time the Obama's had no idea of his past, if you go to buy a house or car do you do a background check into the saleperson or real estate agent,??

[Ragoczy]

Acutaly Rezko, donated to alot of Campaigns both Democrats and Republicans both in Illinois and out of Illinois
Is it also possible at the time the Obama's had no idea of his past, if you go to buy a house or car do you do a background check into the saleperson or real estate agent,??

My concern would remain if Rezko were squeaky clean.

A politician's involved in transaction in which there appears to be a transfer of several hundred thousand dollars and it makes me suspicious.

[Ragoczy]

One other thing to consider is that the Rezko "parcel" is quite small. When I first heard about this transaction I thought: "So there were probably like five acres and Obama could only afford three of them, so Rezko bought the other two as an investment. It's a favor, but not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things."

But use Google Earth to view Obama's house and something different emerges. This isn't acres of property, it's a residential lot -- and what Rezko bought is too small to build anything on. After the initial purchase, the Obamas had unfettered use of the Rezko property as part of their yard (note the original hedge on the street side of the Rezko property) -- and only after questions were asked did the Obamas purchase ten feet of the Rezko "parcel" and put up a fence.

Now the Rezko property, or rather their attorney's property, since they sold it to him, is even smaller -- still too small for a home to be built on it. So where's the benefit to Rezko or his attorney in owning it? That piece of land is useless to its current owners, but not to the owners of the Obama property.

[ElectricBadger]

So far everything stated is mere theory, supposition based on lack of information, most of which would be available if seriously researched (such as college loans, stated income, and so on).

I believe the short of it is that while Obama's family was middle class, it was at the higher end of that. Obama himself, as one would expect from a best selling author and senator with a Harvard education has done well for himself. A harsh reality of American politics is that poor people don't run for high offices, so that's fairly unexceptional. And I'll point out that the McCains are worth several multiples of the Obamas, so not voting for Obama because he can afford things is a bit strange in my opinion. And I believe there have been some allegations against Cindy McCain's fortune with much more evidence behind them.

As for purchasing property, it was clearly a favor from one friend to another. If I had as much money as Razko, would I buy a property I could resell later for profit to make a situation easier for a friend? Certainly. Even if I were squeaky clean ethically, which Obama (by all reports) had no reason to doubt Razko was.

Religion...gah. This one drives me nuts. If - and this is a huge if, as there's NO evidence at all that Obama has been Muslim - but if Obama has to lie about his religion to be elected, I find that a MUCH sadder commentary on American bigotry than on him.

And in our current political situation, heavily invested in the future of two muslim countries, under attack by religious extremists, I'm heavily encouraged to vote for a president that has more experience with the Muslim faith than comes from college textbooks. Discounting him for his experiences with the Muslim faith and countries is comparable to refusing to hire a spanish teacher because they used to live in Mexico.

[Ragoczy]

As for purchasing property, it was clearly a favor from one friend to another. If I had as much money as Razko, would I buy a property I could resell later for profit to make a situation easier for a friend? Certainly. Even if I were squeaky clean ethically, which Obama (by all reports) had no reason to doubt Razko was.

A $500,000+ favor to a politician from a slumlord doesn't make you at all suspicious?

And he did have reason to doubt Rezko was "squeaky clean", saying, in fact, that he was "bone headed" to enter the deal when it had been reported that Rezko was under grand jury investigation. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,1468124.story)

The "profit" came from selling it to their own attorney for "development", despite the fact that the property's too small to build anything on? There are only three possibilities there -- the attorney's "development company" is run by idiots, was bilked by the Rezkos or is in on a deal to make Obama look better -- which does Occam's Razor support?

Also, the reported "profit" doesn't include taxes and other expenses over the years.

The purchase of ten feet of the the Rezko property and putting up a fence only occurred a few months before Rezko was indicted.

Until that fence went up Obama mowed the freakin' lawn on that property. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,1468124.story)

A politician gets this kind of "favor" from someone convicted of influence-peddling and it doesn't make you suspicious? It doesn't make you concerned about, at least, his judgment in doing so?

[Ragoczy]

And I believe there have been some allegations against Cindy McCain's fortune with much more evidence behind them.

This is a bit disingenuous. There has never been an allegation, to my knowledge, against Cindy McCain for any type of financial wrong-doing. Cindy McCain inherited the bulk of her estate and now invests it -- with a large amount going to charity through the McCain's foundation. There were accusations against her father sixty years ago, but nothing against her. Whereas the discussion of Obama's finances here have had to do with his direct actions, decisions and judgment.

[js207]

A $500,000+ favor to a politician from a slumlord doesn't make you at all suspicious?

Particularly when said slumlord received tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in federal and state funding for building and maintaining those slums.

The funding for his travel and studies isn't that hard to explain, though: the "typical white" grandmother who raised him in Hawaii was VP of a fairly large bank, so throwing him a few $k here and there to help with tuition or fund his vacation wouldn't be a stretch for her.

[Logic1]

What I find as an outside observer of this election is that americans cant seem to have an election without trashtalking the other candidate and digging up dirt. That is incredibly sad and as I see it speaks volumes..

[lucy]

What I find as an outside observer of this election is that americans cant seem to have an election without trashtalking the other candidate and digging up dirt. That is incredibly sad and as I see it speaks volumes..

I second that. However, as most things popular in the US, also the mudthrowing has made or is making its way across the Atlantic.

[mkemse]

thereason our candidates are "trash talking" is the Sen McCain has no real answers for our issues, and when a person is desprite they will do what they need to t win and election, Obamam is always talking about the issues, even Sara Palin keeps bring up Obamam hanging out with a 60's Radical, who threw fire bombs, she refers to obama "friend" as a Deomestic Terrorist, what she DOES NOT mention is that Obama was only 8 years old at the time,

[Logic1]

I second that. However, as most things popular in the US, also the mudthrowing has made or is making its way across the Atlantic.

You are right naturally, but the real question is "why that is" and why the people of USA seems to like/want/need/feel it is right..

I am honestly curious.

[js207]

You are right naturally, but the real question is "why that is" and why the people of USA seems to like/want/need/feel it is right..

I am honestly curious.

I suspect the root is quite simple: it works. It's much easier to dig up some scary dirt on the other guy to convince undecided voters to vote against him than it is to convince those voters to vote for you.

It would be nice if someone were to come forward with a well-thought out economic strategy for the nation and try persuading the nation of its virtues ... but somehow, I can't imagine that working, or indeed imagine the public understanding it well enough to judge its merits properly.

[Ragoczy]

There's a difference between "trash-talking" and bringing up legitimate concerns.

It's reasonable to be concerned that a candidate for President has financial ties and was taking financial favors from someone convicted of using money to bribe politicians, don't you think?

[ElectricBadger]

Bringing up concerns, bad decisions, potential issues, and such of a rival candidate is a valid campaign issue. We need to know the down side of our choices, not hear just the happy tidbits - that's a sure route to despotism. The issue is not negative campaigning to me, it's limiting such to realistic and respectful levels. As to why that is, I think it's the tendency of the modern mind not to react strongly to anything but the truly dramatic (and I don't limit this to America...I've seen enough other countries have their own little fits to be sure it's a human phenomenon).

[damyanti]

Regardless of one's stance on whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, we're there -- and his stated willingness to abandon twenty-five million people to terrorists and sectarian violence, I find reprehensible. Even if you think the mess is all our fault, doesn't that mean we should try to help the Iraqis clean it up? Even a vacuum

Oh goody Americans who screwed it up are now going to clean it up. If? You invaded the wrong country, your establishment fabricated evidance and when one claim after another was prooven false, you simply made up another.

Its this superiority attitude and arrogance, which we have no idea where you derive it from, that breeds anti-american contempt. Your country is two hundred years old. Iraq, historically known as Mesopotamia, has been here since the start of the civilization, we are talking thousands of years. My country was founded in the seventh century. What gives you the right to meddle into our business? What gives you the right to tell us how to live?

I do believe Ragoczy that you are a noble man, one with values and that your attentions are good. But I have a first hand experiance where US presence prolonged the war unnecessarily and murkied things up. Its their land, you invaded it with no justifiable cause and you are continuing that occupation against their will. Sectarian violence? Again, its none of your business, its up to them to either learn to coexist or fight it out. You cant stop that, and as long as you are there terrorists will prosper.

[js207]

There's a difference between "trash-talking" and bringing up legitimate concerns.

It's reasonable to be concerned that a candidate for President has financial ties and was taking financial favors from someone convicted of using money to bribe politicians, don't you think?

Certainly a valid concern, which is why it was so unfortunate Obama reneged on his earlier pledge to use public funding for his campaign rather than relying on private sources which now turn out to have included quite a few made-up people. Similarly, I think it's reasonable to care about any candidate's friends and role models - there was at least some justification for people's interest in that wacky "guru" woman Tony Blair's wife was spending time with, although less so than if it had been the PM himself doing the same thing.

[Logic1]

To me there is a difference between digging up dirt and throwing it around and real concerns. This isnt the concerned citizen asking real questions, but rather digging up dirt and throwing it around but... each to his/her own right?
I personally would be pissed off if MY politicians couldnt have a real debate/run for office or whatever if he couldnt use real arguments instead of that. I sure wouldnt want somebody I voted for that doesnt have real arguments but have to step "down" to that.
To me it just shows that you arent good enough to run for office but I might be the only one that thinks so.

yeah high horse and all that

[mkemse]

My feeling is that MCCain is throwing all this dirst around becausehe is trailing reald bady in the Polls, roughly 3 weeks to go, and desprite times leads to desprite measure, and a CNN Poll yesterday (1-08-08) shoews Obamam puling away with 52%-41%
The REpublicans seems to be getting very desprite and will do what ever they need to to try and slow Obama's Campaign dwn, but as one Anylist said last night "It may be too little to late"

[denuseri]

If you really watch the thing they both (as I have allways said) will be trash talking the other.

That hasnt changed about politics since democracy was adopted by the greeks 400years before the common era. Heck the trash talking part probably started long long before that even. It is certianly not only present in the states, its just that the media grandizes it by giving it a viable platform to thrive.

The impression of americans as being self superiour or condensending to the world is a cultural phenomena left over from the nationalist leanings many countries adopted in the preceeding ages that lead eventually to ww2 and the subsiquient cold war it happens with every country that reaches out to control others in an imperial fashion.

Go back to the 17 and 18 hundreds, pretty much anytime before ww2 and people said the same thing about brittian and france when they were at the hieght of their empires.

The sad thing is that America appears to be making many of the same mistakes its two primary political parents made when they were trying to run things.

We sure didnt set out to do it this way when we came out of our isolationist period to help save europe and the pacific in world war 2.



The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

[Muskan]

I wish America get some Ronald Reagan again.
I wish America get some Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises again.
I know Obama will take America to further turmoils and deeper pits.
I understand Maccain is not much better option than Obama.
I wonder when Americans will try to step up towards miniarchy and than freedom.

[Ragoczy]

Oh goody Americans who screwed it up are now going to clean it up. If? You invaded the wrong country, your establishment fabricated evidance and when one claim after another was prooven false, you simply made up another.

Its this superiority attitude and arrogance, which we have no idea where you derive it from, that breeds anti-american contempt. Your country is two hundred years old. Iraq, historically known as Mesopotamia, has been here since the start of the civilization, we are talking thousands of years. My country was founded in the seventh century. What gives you the right to meddle into our business? What gives you the right to tell us how to live?

I do believe Ragoczy that you are a noble man, one with values and that your attentions are good. But I have a first hand experiance where US presence prolonged the war unnecessarily and murkied things up. Its their land, you invaded it with no justifiable cause and you are continuing that occupation against their will. Sectarian violence? Again, its none of your business, its up to them to either learn to coexist or fight it out. You cant stop that, and as long as you are there terrorists will prosper.

My reason for supporting the ouster of Hussein was simple:

The 2001 Gulf War never ended, no cessation of hostilities was ever signed, only a ceasefire, the terms of which were not complied with. US Troops were already in the area, on and around the Iraq-Kuwait border and enforcing the no-fly zones. All of this was at the behest and agreement of the international community. However, there was no plan in place to ever end the situation and the historical precedent for this was undesirable: 50 years from now we'd have 50,000 US troops and three million land mines on the Iraq-Kuwait border "containing" Hussein's idiot son. Sound familiar? It should, because it's the current state of the Korean Peninsula.

So, yeah, I do think if we're going to be the ones faced with that likelihood, we should have the right to say "fuck that, we're going to end it now and get it over with".

And ultimately, no, Iraq has not been there since the start of civilization. Any number of geographical borders have come and gone in that region over the last millennia and the national entity known as "Iraq" is a leftover of an area granted to British control by the League of Nations and forged out of traditionally hostile groups. Short of dividing the country amongst those groups or the arrival of another dictator strong enough to terrorize them, I have doubts that they'll make it without a lot of sectarian bloodshed. But we are where we are today, and I think it's better for the US to stay until the Iraqi government feels comfortable than to just precipitously pull out. Leaving the Iraqi government unstable and not in control of the provinces would simply guarantee sectarian violence and bloodshed, while staying at least provides the possibility of avoiding it.

[Ragoczy]

I wish America get some Ronald Reagan again.
I wish America get some Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises again.
I know Obama will take America to further turmoils and deeper pits.
I understand Maccain is not much better option than Obama.
I wonder when Americans will try to step up towards miniarchy and than freedom.

Vote Zombie Reagan 2008