I was curious who everyone thinks is going to win. I mean in your heart of hearts. Not just who you want to win.

My heart says it will be : Obama

I want... McCain.

I just wanted to take a little amhd poll.

My heart says Obama it has since 2004 when it hoped he would run for president in 2008.

Hey, spitvenom -

Just wanted to play devil's advocate for a second... not for nothing, but everyone who graduates from the Naval Academy can hardly be called an idiot. If someone graduated 357th out of 899, is he a little less of an idiot.

Secondly, to your quote: "You know, John McCain likes to say he'll follow Osama Bin Laden to the Gates of Hell, but he won't even follow him to the cave in which he lives." - Obama. Can you picture Obama following Osama into a cave? I mean, granted, McCain's statement is tough talk and machismo, and all that bs, but it's not like Obama is any towering figure of heroism either.

Again, just playing devil's advocate.

Obama will be the next president.
As for whom I would vote for, Willie Nelson. We need to get this weed issue cleared up once and for all.

Q. Why will Jane Fonda vote for Barack Obama?
A. Because Ho Chi Minh is dead.



What does Osama and Obama have in common ?
They both have close friends who bombed the Pentagon.

What does Osama and Obama have in common ?
They both have close friends who bombed the Pentagon.Instead of saying something positive about the candidate you like you have to demean a candidate you don't like - why is that a theme with you?

Well Obama said he will go into Pakistan to get Osama so you have to go on the man's word. I know that is funny to say about a politician but for some reason I believe him. I don't know why since I never trust what any politician says but my gut tells me we can trust what he says.

The grade of a C is considered average anything below that is below average. Some people call them below average I call them idiots. Let me pose this question to you:

Say you were choosing a Dr and you narrowed it down to two Dr.'s one graduated 1st in the class and the other almost last, which Dr. would you choose?

Lets say that C doctor has a proven record of success over many years in the business and that A student has virtually no track record in the field.

As for whom I would vote for, Willie Nelson. We need to get this weed issue cleared up once and for all.

The next president should wise up and say Hey we could tax weed and make some money off it.

I am a risk taker, I never go with the flow, and I like to be the first person to try new things out.

If the C Dr has a proven track record that says to me his Idea's are stale and he is set in his way's and he is right and I am wrong.

A smart young Dr will be willing to take risk's, try new things out, and Will be open to suggestions and not do what has always been done.

Instead of saying something positive about the candidate you like you have to demean a candidate you don't like - why is that a theme with you?

LOL... hey NK... it was a joke! ( funny too I might add) But just sos you know... it is the TRUTH too. If that is demeaning... perhaps it is Obama's problem. Come on NK I know you have a sense of humor in there somewhere... ;)

What does Osama and Obama have in common ?
They both have close friends who bombed the Pentagon.


Lou Dobbs?

Probably .you know how these things get passed along.

Instead of saying something positive about the candidate you like you have to demean a candidate you don't like - why is that a theme with you?

It's part of the bigger game Karma. As long as the people have an enemy and are split, they will never unite. If we never unite, it's bidness as usual.

Ah yes, governing by fear - a republican specialty.

I think we need a change. The last 8 years of republican rule has pounded this country into the ground. I think that my generation is tired of the "good ole boys." Therefore I will be supporting Obama. I also believe that he will be our next president.

Ah yes, governing by fear - a republican specialty.

Golly gee wiz... that wasn't demeaning at all...

LOL! :) OMG!:D Hehe - It was a joke - but it's true. ;)
Have a sense of humour!! :o

LOL! :) OMG!:D Hehe - It was a joke - but it's true. ;)
Have a sense of humour!!!! :o

LOL good because it looks like you were kind of hmmmm? What is the saying... oh YES! Dishin it out but not taken it... glad to see you have a sense of humor... uhhh by the way... it wasn't funny. But keep up the good work trying!! :)

I should add- I have not felt so strongly for one side in a very long time... if ever.

Tuscany,

I agree with you... he is going to take it... not sure if it the kind of change we need but I think he will win too.

Ah yes, governing by fear - a republican specialty.

LOLOL, after every headline this week, Choux's post that the stock market has officially crashed and 8 years of unhinged fear mongering over Bush, I'd say you have that backwards, NK. Manic panic is S.O.P. for the left.

Not sure where you get your data from. McCain panicked, Obama was calm. That's one of the reasons McCain's voter confidence is evaporating.

Not sure where you get your data from. McCain panicked, Obama was calm. That's one of the reasons why McCain's voter confidence is evaporating.

When did McCain panic, and where've you been the last 8 years?

When did McCain panic, and where've you been the last 8 years?

I have been living in America watching a Republican President lead this country into ruin.

I have been living in America watching a Republican President lead this country into ruin.

What does that have to do with McCain's "panic?"

I believe your question was "where have you been the last 8 years..." I answered that question. McCain's panic is evidant in his body language- his stutter when answering questions.

I believe Obama will win according what I've seen up to this point (polls, etc.)

I hope that is the case.

I was curious who everyone thinks is gonna win. I mean in your heart of hearts. Not just who you want to win.

My heart says it will be : Obama

I want....McCain.

I just wanted to take a little amhd poll.


My mind says it is Obama. With Bush's unpopularity and the economy looking worse, Obama benefits. Most people don't question how he is going to accomplish all that he promises, nor do they question the fact that he does not have much experience at all.
The MSM just looks the other way.


McCain is running a lethargic campaign, and he gets my vote by default. Palin is one of the few good thing he has done in his campaign.


I think people should remember that the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS has been in charge since 2006 and what has happened?

-- ^^^ gas prices
-- tanking economy.


Now in 2009 Bush is gone. Then possibly Obama in the WH and a DEMOCRATIC controlled CONGRESS.


but heck when I was young I lived through Jimmy Carter :)


Regardless, God is sovreign :D

inthebox.

Ha ha.. I liked your comments! Agree with you too! We DID survive ol Jimmy didn't we? LOL

I believe your question was "where have you been the last 8 years..." I answered that question. McCain's panic is evidant in his body language- his stutter when answering questions.

Um, no. My question was specifically to NK and it was two parts, "When did McCain panic, and where've you been the last 8 years?" If you want to talk about stutters...

ThEAO0lt4Dw

Speech,

NK took his marbles and went home... he was losing your lively discussion. Hee hee

When Obama does not know the answer/or does not want to say his answer he just goes uma uma uma uma uma and anna anna anna. This guy scares me to death. He's even said his faith was Muslim. I believe he is not even a qualified American Presidential candidate/citizen by birth as he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. His father was not an American. I find it rather odd that the man could take a trip literally around the world and then attend Harvard two years later. Just who funded him? He had 2 Pakastani roommates in college at Occidental U. Where was he from age 6 until age 11? Odd how he magically purchased a very expensive home in 2005. Where did he get the money for that? Odd how his chief advisor is Valerie Jarrett who is from Shiraz, Iran. Odd how this man became a US Senator without having proven his citizenship.

Just coincidence, don't be concerned.

I'm not that happy with McCain either for that matter but at least this man is an American of American parents. I am not happy about his supposed capitivity in Viet Nam. I believe yes, he was in Viet Nam but he was not really a prisoner in the truest sense of the word. On the day he came back to America on a US plane, a friend of mine was at the same base. He remarked that this particular man did not act like the other prisoners did in that he seemed to look pretty good and did not exhibit the same emotional problems the other men had after their release. He had a "photo op" at his hospital bed at the base. I find this most peculiar also.

I really don't like either one of these candidates. But if I had to choose, I would definitely vote for McCain. He seems the lesser evil of the two.

I really think that the Republican and Democratic parties have really let down the American voters giving us two "ringers" this election.

Twinkie,

I hear you and I agree! I do like palin though... I know she hasn't got all the "experience" but neither does Obama and he is running for President. She is a Washington outsider. People complain that is what they want and when one shows up... they eat her alive. It is frustrating.

ANY DOUBTS THAT OBAMA IS A PUPPET of Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Trilateral Commission ended when Brzezinski appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe on March 21 2008 to campaign for Obama.

twinkiedooter -

Dang, you nailed the issue of Obama with a sledgehammer... I do think that he is a Muslim posing as a "Christian", although that's a term thrown around as loosely as any other. Not that you were making that comparison but I just wanted to add that.

He's a Marxist revolutionist in the vein of Che Guavarra who was a murderous thug posing as a revolutionary for freedom but was no such thing. Now, Obama has been clean and unconnected from any evil but I wonder what this guy is really like behind closed doors. The media adores him and seeks to preserve his Ivy League, pseudo-intellectual, white-collar image and he's being billed at the Messiah of the free world. It's crazy the way people worship this guy who we know really nothing about.

Wake me up when it's over.

Marxist revolutionist? Hummm. Is that anything like a communist cause that's what we been calling him up here in Idaho. But then we ain't real politically correct round these parts.

The biggest "ha ha" in this election is laughing at the Pubs trying to sale John McCain, as a "maverick." John's a hot tempered old "sidekick" of George W. Bush. John's closer to W (Dubya) than X,Y, or Z. He stubbornly surprised his own party with his veep selection. The Moose lodge, now short one "Sarah Palin," in just a few weeks has managed to become the most incompetent Washington insider politician in recent history. This McCain campaign is so under educated that many of the surrogates are often reduced to ridiculing Obama for his popularity and ignorantly claiming him a Marxist. Once proud Reagan Republicans, have been replaced by simpletons.

Dubya had a Republican led Congress four years of his two terms, and that experiment turned out more disastrous than a second grade "spewing volcano" science project. Osama Bin Laden's somewhere in a cave, probably in Afghanistan or Pakistan, making videos and preparing for his Oscar award acceptance speech.

Who I wanted to win was Ron Paul. I'm going to vote for Barack Obama, and "yes" he does have the inside track.

I still want Ron Paul as my president and I am having a hard time settling... no, I can't just settle for either one. McCain is no Mavrerick and Obama is a communist. That's all we get.
I just want a huge, smokin asteroid to smash into earth.

I still want Ron Paul as my president and I am having a hard time settling...no, I can't just settle for either one. McCain is no Mavrerick and Obama is a communist. That's all we get.
I just want a huge, smokin asteroid to smash into earth.

I hope that asteroid lands on an IRS building. Under communism the government controls the masses, but ends up benefiting the few. Sound familiar? In effect the Republican trickle down economics of GW Bush and now John McCain would come closer to footing that bill. The CEO's dream come true! Obama's trying to remove some of that burden off the middle and lower class. Some say Obama's promoting a form of socialism. And I agree, "yes" at least to a degree. Kibbutzim in Israel run quite effectively and originally many of the kibbutz were based on principles of socialism.

He's even said his faith was Muslim. I believe he is not even a qualified American Presidential candidate/citizen by birth as he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii.


I'm sadden to read such statements. :rolleyes: Where did you hear that? Even if he was a closet Muslim, does that make him a bad person? And don't you think McCain would had brought Obama's citizenship disqualifications to issue, if possible?

I'm sadden to read such statements. :rolleyes: Where did you hear that? Even if he was a closet Muslim, does that make him a bad person? And don't you think McCain would had brought Obama's citizenship disqualifications to issue, if possible?

Obama said it himself on September 7, 2008 during an interview with George Stephanophalis. That his faith was Muslim.

McCain was actually booed on Friday at a crowd where they were trying to get him to say bad things about Obama. If anything McCain was standing up for the man. McCain does not have to run a dirty campaign.

Answer me this question. Where did Obama get his funny purple colored lips? This is not from his father. This is more a Middle Eastern trait or a trait from Indonesia (of all places). He looks nothing like his father or mother. I don't think that his father really was Obama Sr. And the name Obama is not a Kenyan name either.

twinkiedooter -

dang, you nailed the issue of Obama with a sledgehammer...I do think that he is a Muslim posing as a "Christian", although that's a term thrown around as loosely as any other. Not that you were making that comparison but I just wanted to add that.

He's a Marxist revolutionist in the vein of Che Guavarra who was a murderous thug posing as a revolutionary for freedom but was no such thing. Now, Obama has been clean and unconnected from any evil but I wonder what this guy is really like behind closed doors. The media adores him and seeks to preserve his Ivy League, pseudo-intellectual, white-collar image and he's being billed at the Messiah of the free world. It's crazy the way people worship this guy who we know really nothing about.

Wake me up when it's over.

The media adores Obama as they are TOLD to do this. The media does not listen to anyone other than the people who run the media. Any reporter who dares report the truth has a bad case of instant unemployment.

Obama has so many Socialist ideas and ideology that would spell the end of any sort of American freedom we now have.

What really bothers me about this man is - Why would he write a book about his father and his early life a few years ago? Makes no sense to me other than a set up by the Trilateral Commission. Who cared or even knew who this guy was a few years ago?

Also, he went on in his own book to say how he did drugs - and a lot of them. Do you really want some druggie in office? I don't. George W is/was a drunk. Obama did pot and cocaine and supposedly shunned heroine. He said this in his own book. I am just paraphrasing it.

Answer me this question. Where did Obama get his funny purple colored lips?
I think we get a good picture of your mindset now.

Purple lips? Maybe he is using grape popcicles to stop smoking? Humm... purple lips... That's it, he is really an alien. It's true! The lizard reptilians are infiltrating the government faster than we thought! OH MY GOD! Where is my tin foil hat. Wait, I think only aluminum will work for the reptilian species.
I'll get back to you on that.

YouTube - Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4)

NK - My mindset is to point out that a black person does not have those funny purple colored lips and that his funny colored lips come from a different racial genetic background. And yes, some of my friends just happen to be black - from African ancestry and they have pointed this peculiar coloration out to me that I had not fully noticed before.

What is so chilling about this man Obama is that his wife at the convention said he would be a "taskmaster". If you say that word to anyone from Africa they will immediately say that particular word is highly associated with slavery. Why would she use that particular word of all the words in the English language to choose from when describing her husband? Maybe she is trying to give us a big hint of what is to come.

Also, he insists that everyone should have a job. That's nice to know. Just where are these jobs supposedly going to materialize from since almost all American jobs have been happily shipped overseas by corporations who got fat tax breaks to do so? America used to manufacture some wonderful goods, but now we have few and no factories left producing anything affordable as China and Mexico now have all the jobs there making goods at slave wages selling the goods over here for high prices making the corporations richer than ever. Do you really think that mindset of the corporations is going to change? No.

Ah, Uncle Stalin and Uncle Lenin would be proud of their little Amerikaska nephew, Obama.

Russia overthrew the Communists as that system did not work.

Do we want to have to go through the motions of overthrowing Communism in this country?

I don't.

YouTube - Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4)

I liked your video. Everyone should watch to the end. You are bound to learn some things that could open your eyes to what is really the situation in America today.

One thing that really bothers me (and should bother everyone as well) is that Obama has ceased taking campaign contributions from us "little people" and is only taking money from corporations. What part of that picture is wrong/right? There is a term for this - I think it's called Corporate Wh*re.

I guess if you're one of those wealthy CEO's who has a Golden Parachute waiting for you to the tune of $20 million, please ignore this post.

Oh, gasoline is now $2.59 a gallon for regular here in this part of Ohio and keeps going down. Now I can afford(?) to drive to work 6 days a week and not have to fork over $50+ per week on gasoline. I'd rather fritter my money away buying dumb stuff like food.

Obama said it himself on September 7, 2008 during an interview with George Stephanophalis. That his faith was Muslim.

Obama was addressing McCain surrogate/supporters campaigning that false notion (not McCain himself or his hired professional campaigners)...

"My Christian faith," Obama quickly said. "Well, what I'm saying is that he (McCain) hasn't suggested that I'm a Muslim. And I think that his campaign's upper echelons have not, either. What I think is fair to say is that, coming out of the Republican camp, there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith – something which I find deeply offensive, and that has been going on for a pretty long time.""

Facts about Obama and his heritage are found in the following link...

snopes.com: Who Is Barack Obama? (http://snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp)


McCain was actually booed on Friday at a crowd where they were trying to get him to say bad things about Obama. If anything McCain was standing up for the man. McCain does not have to run a dirty campaign.

Those uneducated fools that booed McCain all owe him an apology. It was wonderful to see John McCain remove the microphone from the older women that made the racist comment about Obama.


Answer me this question. Where did Obama get his funny purple colored lips? This is not from his father. This is more a Middle Eastern trait or a trait from Indonesia (of all places). He looks nothing like his father or mother. I don't think that his father really was Obama Sr. And the name Obama is not a Kenyan name either.

Answer: Neither from Indonesia, Kenya, or the Middle East. I have a second home in SE Asia. Those "funny purple colored lips," are the product of mixed skin tones, diet, and other health related issues. You appear to have a very narrow criteria that meets your satisfaction. I'm just curious while we are in an Q & A session... do you have any problems with Jews, if one were in the position to possibly be the next president?

YouTube - Know Enough? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY)

Babram - watch this one minute video and then tell me just how wonderful he is. What is YOUR excuse for his association with William Ayres?

No, I have no problem with Jews as FDR was of Jewish ancestry hence a Jew.

Oh, also Obama in his own book was citing his Muslim religion. I don't think he qualifies as a "closet Muslim" as you put it.

I don't have a narrow criteria as you put it. I just don't want someone in this country's highest elected position of President who has mob connections and terrorist connections and can't prove his citizenship eligibility to run for that position. Why did he travel using an Indonesian passport when he is supposedly an American citizen a few years ago after age 18? Oh, just coincidence, nothing to worry about. I guess he just had this lying around his home and decided to use it instead of his American passport which he did not have at the time. Guess that's okay too.

Also, he is not qualified legally to hold ANY elected position in this country and that includes his present position of US Senator. He is essentially an "illegal alien".

Why did a Federal Judge order him on September 29, 2008 to produce the following certified documents?

1. Obama's vault version (certified copy of his "original" version) Birth Certificate and


2. A certified copy of Obama's Certification of Citizenship


3. A certified copy of Obama's Oath of Allegiance.

This is in the case of Berg vs. Obama in Federal Court. Obama has continually filed Motions to Dismiss the lawsuit and stonewall any disclosure of the documents requested. If he would produce the documents the suit would end then and there. No, he can't produce these documents so he has his attorneys stall for time (a time honored practice among defense attorneys when their client cannot produce documents, etc). Why would he NOT produce these documents if he was truly on the up and up? Answer me that Babram? You can't.

It's crazy the way people worship this guy who we know really nothing about.


Like jesus, god?? I agree!! Very crazy indeed!

Sorry twinkiedoodle,

But you win the award of craziest lunatic on this site. It used to be magprob but to be quite honest I'm believing more of what he says everyday. Maybe he has been right all along. Yes, even though I like him, it scares me to believe him, but I can't control it. You on the other hand hand have completely lost it! Purple lips!! Bwa ha ha ha ha ha! If it weren't so hilarious id feel sorry for you.

What? Somebody actually believes me? Well, we'll see about that... fur sure. Don't fall for it. I was sent here by the evil ones to twist your mind. Twinkie can't hold a candle to me. Really! I am the craziest person here and I refuse to take second place to any one. ANYONE I TELL YOU!!
I talk to Aliens... the big reptilian type. I had a baby with a female bigfoot I tell you.
I really don't have a tin foil hat. I like to listen to them. Hell, I even hear voices in the high power lines. They tell me when to go to the bathroom.

YouTube - Know Enough? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY)

Babram - watch this one minute video and then tell me just how wonderful he is. What is YOUR excuse for his association with William Ayres?


For starters I prefer to work off facts, not excuses. Anybody can make a video for Youtube. Secondly, William's surname is not "Ayres," it's Ayers. Thirdly, playing the six degree separation game has G. Gordon Liddy doing lap dances on John McCain. BTW, personally I find neither Ayers or Liddy all that wonderful.

Obama's 'Weatherman' Connection - Fact Checker (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html)


The Facts

"The first article in the mainstream press linking Obama to Ayers appeared in the London Daily Mail on February 2. It was written by Peter Hitchens, the right-wing brother of the left-wing firebrand turned Iraq war supporter, Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens cited the Ayers connection to bolster his argument that Obama is "far more radical than he would like us to know."

The Hitchens piece was followed by a Bloomberg article last week pointing to the Ayers connection as support for Hillary Clinton's contention that Obama might not be able to withstand the "Republican attack machine." Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the State Department, predicted that the Republicans would seize on the Ayers case, and other Chicago relationships, to "bludgeon Obama's presidential aspirations into the dust."

The London Sunday Times joined the chorus this weekend by reporting that Republicans were "out to crush Barack by painting him as a leftwinger with dubious support".

The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Ayers did not respond to e-mails and telephone calls requesting clarification of the relationship. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:

Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.

In the short term, the person who has most to gain by speculation about Obama's acquaintance with a former terrorist is Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady likes to present herself as "tested and vetted" after years of exposure to Republican attacks, in contrast to Obama, a relative newcomer to hardscrabble presidential politics. Such arguments resonate with Johnson, the counterterrorism expert, who told me that he is a Clinton supporter, although not involved with the campaign.

But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday pointed out, Clinton has her own, also tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentences of a couple of convicted Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?

Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington, said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and "passion for social justice."

"This whole connection is a stretch," Harrington told me. "Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator. It would be difficult to find people round here who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns.""

Here's some purple lip photos of the man for starters. His coloration is more like someone from either Malaysia or Indonesia.

You said: "For starters I prefer to work off of facts, not excuses"

What is your "excuse" for his Federal lawsuit and a Federal Judge telling him to produce a certified birth certificate, certification of citizenship and oath of allegiance?

P.S. The Washington Post is a joke. Now maybe if you said the WSJ or the NYTimes, I'd pay attention to an article, but the Washington Post, not in this lifetime. Sorry. Fact Checker is a joke to put it mildly.

So, back to the original question...

I don't want either for president. That said - I think Obama will win.

My GOD! Enough about those purple lips.
I want to talk about those ears! They look just like those cute little mushrooms that grow on fallen logs deep, deep in the rain forest. Don't they? That could mean he is of the Elfin tribe. Couldn't it?

No, I have no problem with Jews as FDR was of Jewish ancestry hence a Jew.


FDR never ran on national election platform being known as Jewish. Many Gentiles, with all respect, have a little Jewish ancestry if you shake the tree hard enough. So you're OK with Jews, if one were to ever one run for president. What about Muslims?




Oh, also Obama in his own book was citing his Muslim religion. I don't think he qualifies as a "closet Muslim" as you put it..


No, he didn't. snopes.com: Who Is Barack Obama? (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp)


I don't have a narrow criteria as you put it. I just don't want someone in this country's highest elected position of President who has mob connections and terrorist connections and can't prove his citizenship eligibility to run for that position.


Why did he travel using an Indonesian passport when he is supposedly an American citizen a few years ago after age 18? Oh, just coincidence, nothing to worry about. I guess he just had this lying around his home and decided to use it instead of his American passport which he did not have at the time. Guess that's okay too.

Also, he is not qualified legally to hold ANY elected position in this country and that includes his present position of US Senator. He is essentially an "illegal alien".


HUH? So as an illegal alien, instead of dodging the government and go into hiding, he decided to become more visual to the public as a senator, then run for president. That is very special logic that you are applying to Obama's life story. I disagree with you, but it makes for great drama. BTW people do have dual citizenship.

On another note... I know there are a fair share of goody-two-shoe people seeking political perfection in candidates. On my father's side of the family I have two cousins in the mafia and both spent time in prison. Everybody on this board has had some questionable connections. Trust me, nobody can being voting for John McCain worried about connections. The fact is you can't run for president without satisfying that criteria to our US government. Barack Obama has already done so, and to the satisfaction of John McCain.

America's Right (http://www.americasright.com/)

There is a video with Attorney Philip Berg discussing his lawsuit against Obama on this site that is most interesting.

Also, there is a lengthy article about the Bill Ayers topic that says quite a different tune than that of the Washington Post. The article is about 10 inches down from the video on the site.

Mag - he's not an elfin - he's a clone. The clone has ears from George W except he's not white.

You cannot have dual citizenship and run for President of the United States.

Also, here is a PDF file of the Plaintiff Philip Berg vs. Obama filed in Federal Court on September 29, 2008. I find it most interesting reading as Mr. Berg is an attorney who knows his facts. Maybe you could learn something as well if you bother to read it and improve your personal information on the topic.

Mr. Berg can be sued for libel if his suit is untrue in any way. Why would he jeopardise his professional standing with a bogus lawsuit?

A clone? Well... then I guess this is worse than I first suspected. You know, the fallen angels were cloning humans and animals according to Genisis. That could have something to do with his purple lips. Why couldn't you clone a purple lipped thing-a-majiggy.

You said: Barack Obama has already done so, and to the satisfaction of John McCain.

WRONG.

If he DID satisfy the government, then why would Mr. Berg be wasting his time filing a lawsuit regarding the fact that Obama has NOT released these documents?

John McCain has nothing to do with what the government requires nor does he have any say so in this regard.

Do yourself a favor (and us here as well) go back and watch a few hundred more hours of the Sopranos. Your mama is out of gobago, go to the store.

You cannot have dual citizenship and run for President of the United States.



Hey dooter, Obama wasn't running for president when he was ten years old. ;)

Here's some purple lip photos of the man for starters. His coloration is more like someone from either Malaysia or Indonesia.


I have to admit you're a hoot. I see people all the time, in good old America, with the same lip coloration.

This is in the case of Berg vs. Obama in Federal Court. Obama has continually filed Motions to Dismiss the lawsuit and stonewall any disclosure of the documents requested. If he would produce the documents the suit would end then and there. No, he can't produce these documents so he has his attorneys stall for time (a time honored practice among defense attorneys when their client cannot produce documents, etc). Why would he NOT produce these documents if he was truly on the up and up? Answer me that Babram? You can't.



Huh? I'll let you know when I can't answer, and judging by your questions/statements that won't be any time soon. Most individuals in the US that have the financial backing can produce a court case. That's why if you go to Berg's sight you'll see that he's begging for support. Berg is a gimmick lawyer that pulls these stunts for attention and seeks these 15 minutes of fame moments. He tried it with Dubya and Cheney, and now he's attempting this with Obama. Whoop-tee-do!

Allegations against Obama easily discredited (http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/sep/18/letter-allegations-against-obama-easily-discredite/)

"Mr. Phillip Berg, the attorney quoted by Mr. Hansen, is well known in Pennsylvania. Previous lawsuits filed by him include one against President Bush and Vice President Cheney, claiming they knew beforehand of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and one against three U.S. Supreme Court justices to disbar themselves for deciding Bush won the 2000 presidential election against Al Gore.

His current lawsuit against Barack Obama has about as much merit.

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, SEC. 305.(8 U.S.C. 1405), “A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.” As to whether or not Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, one need only go to FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org) to view a copy of his birth certificate. It indicates Obama was born at 7:24 p.m., Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu (which was/is in Hawaii).

So much for the claim “Mr. Obama's mother went to Kenya late in her pregnancy and ended up giving birth there.”

More information about attorney Berg and his spurious lawsuits, etc., can be found at Urban Legends Reference Pages (http://www.snopes.com), FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org), TruthOrFiction.com-Is that forwarded email Truth or Fiction? Research into stories, scams, hoaxes, myths, and urban legends on the Internet (http://www.truthorfiction.com), and phillyBurbs.com (http://www.phillyburbs.com), to name just a few sources."

Speech,

NK took his marbles and went home...he was losing your lively discussion. hee heeActually I have been flying around visiting family in two different cities - big Thanksgiving get-together. I don't live my life online, I like to be with 'real people'. You seem like a nasty person in real life, someone who would talk behind someone's back.

Twinkie the charges related to his birth or heritage are not substansive ;a canard ;and dilutes the many real reasons there are to oppose Obama .

Actually I have been flying around visiting family in two different cities - big Thanksgiving get-together. I don't live my life online, I like to be with 'real people'. You seem like a nasty person in real life, someone who would talk behind someone's back.

You know NK... I was being silly and incidentally when you put something on the internet for everyone's eyes to see... it ain't exactly talking behind ones back. Duh I was teasing you. Something you just can't grasp. You get mean and personal... deal with it dude. I have my own opinion of what you are like in REAL life as well... :D

That's your standard answer isn't it? "I was bring silly" or "I was teasing you". That's called passive-aggressive behaviour.

That's your standard answer isn't it? "I was bring silly" or "I was teasing you". That's called passive-aggressive behaviour.

Oh good grief NK... hows about this... I apologize! I want everyone that read it to understand I really do not think that NK couldn't handle the conversation, took his marbles and left. OK?

P.S. no one could accuse you of having any marbles to begin with ( no pun intended... promise) :D

I think Obama is going to win...
I honestly would like to see a re-do...
Mag, not with Willie Nelson, but close;)
Just stay on track people and others will be able to enjoy reading the info from this post;)
NK, I hope you had a nice weekend.

Startover,

I agree with you. I thought it might be a close race but now I don't even think that... I think he is going to win BIG. McCain needs a miracle...

I am a risk taker, I never go with the flow, and I like to be the first person to try new things out.

If the C Dr has a proven track record that says to me his Idea's are stale and he is set in his way's and he is right and I am wrong.

A smart young Dr will be willing to take risk's, try new things out, and Will be open to suggestions and not do what has always been done.

Spitvenom,

You would really allow an untried heart surgeon with no track record so surgery on you instead of a surgeon who has a proven history of success because the new guy has new ideas about heart surgery? What if his new ideas are just plain wrong and criminally negligent and if he uses them to operate on you he'll kill you? Would you still choose him? Because Obama's ideas on foreign affairs and dealing with terrorism are criminally negligent, his ideas on taxes during a recession are criminally negligent, and if we elect him he's going to kill the USA, economically and in terms of security. The fact that they are NEW ideas doesn't make them GOOD ideas or SAFE ideas.

And in fact, in Obama's case we have historical proof that his policies are downright dangerous. You need only look back to Carter to see what Obama's foreign policies would do to us. And as for his economic policies, you need look only at Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression to see what will happen if his policies are implemented. Hoover's tax policies, which match Obama's, dragged the Great Depression out for 10 years longer than it needed to be. The proof of the dangers of Obama's policies are there. His ideas may be different, but they aren't really "new", and they certainly aren't good.

Elliot

Ok here are my thoughts... as much as I would love to see an african american president, as I think that would finally show that we are past this racism thing, I can't help but get hung up on his name. His full name is Barrack Hussein Obama. Correct me if Im wrong but didn't someone named Hussein play a part in the worst possible terrorist attack that this country has ever seen? EVER! I know its just a name but let us think for a minute how much thought goes into our parents naming us. Or even us naming our children. I know that his mother is white and I believe was born in the US but don't you think that his entire name came from somewhere? His father is African American and I am sure played a part in the naming of his son. His mothers name was Ann Dunham. So who in her family was named Barrack, or Hussein? Who in his family was named that? I want to know where the names come from. I am willing to bet that it goes back to the middle east somewhere. That is why I will not be voting for Barrack Hussein Obama. Had his name been James Brown, maybe. I know it seems trivial but I can't help it. Also we see these commercials saying that we don't need 4 years of the same. Just because John McCain is a republican as is George Bush, doesn't mean he has the same ideas as George Bush.

I would also like to point out a comment made on one of Barrack Obama's commercials that really makes me think that he is insulting peoples intelligence! His commercial makes referance to McCains plan for health care stating that the tax break we would receive would go directly to the insurance company. If you actually go to McCain's website and read his proposed plan It explains that the money we would receive could be used to pay our health care premiums and any money left over we could deposit in our HRA. That makes a whole lot of sense. What I meant by him insulting our intelligence is that does he not realize that we can go right to McCain's website and read it for ouselves?? And after doing so, makes him look like a liar and a mud slinger!!

Ok here are my thoughts..... as much as I would love to see an african american president, as I think that would finally show that we are past this racism thing, I can't help but get hung up on his name. His full name is Barrack Hussein Obama. Correct me if Im wrong but didnt someone named Hussein play a part in the worst possible terrorist attack that this country has ever seen? EVER!! I know its just a name but let us think for a minute how much thought goes into our parents naming us.


OK. Several corrections to be made here.

1. The culprit terrorist responsible for 9/11 is named "Osama Bin Laden."

2. The name "Hussein" is more popular in other countries than the United States. In other countries it's almost as popular as the given name "John," and "Smith" as a surname, in the US.

3. Forty-seven years ago, Barack was born to a mother that had no idea that Saddam Hussein would had turned out to be a dictator.

Vote on the issues folks.

Please remember that I did not say anything that I was saying was factual. I said that I can't help but feel that way. That is what my heart feels and that is what the original poster asked us to do. I was simply posting my own personal thoughts. Of course his mother couldn't have known that, again right wrong or indifferent that is how I feel. And in the wonderful nation that we live in, I have the right to feel that way if I so please.

OK. Several corrections to be made here.

1. The culprit terrorist responsible for 9/11 is named "Osama Bin Laden."

2. The name "Hussein" is more popular in other countries than the United States. In other countries it's almost as popular as the given name "John," and "Smith" as a surname.

3. Forty-seven years ago, Barack was born to a mother that had no idea that Saddam Hussein would had turned out to be a dictator.

Vote on the issues folks.


Please remember that as americans we can vote on whatever reason we deem suitable. I am intelligent enough to research the issues but regardless, we can vote for whatever reason we see fit. It is our right, and if I don't feel comfortable voting for him because of his name etc, that is my right.

New polls came out today indicating that Obama has regained a double-digit lead in the Gallup, that he's taken a solid lead in Missouri and that he's even taken a small lead in North Dakota (which went for Bush by over 20 percentage points in the last election.)

With three weeks to go, the McCain/Palin ticket is fighting just to hold onto GOP stronghold states. It seems like they no sooner get one leak temporarily plugged than they spout two or three more.

Please remember that as americans we can vote on whatever reason we deem suitable. I am intelligent enough to research the issues but regardless, we can vote for whatever reason we see fit. It is our right, and if I dont feel comfortable voting for him because of his name etc, that is my right.


Somebody questioned your right to vote?? I'm sure George Washington and his men didn't feel like crossing the Delaware on a cold blistery night, but thankfully he led on anyway. You asked to be corrected if you were wrong. I did so.

Babram- your kidding right? If you go back and read what I said, "someone named Hussein played a part" I did not say he was completely responsible for the attacks. If you don't understand that Saddam Hussein, Iraq, Osama Bin Laden and all the others are all connected then you would be confused by my comment. As far as questioning my right to vote, you stated that we should "vote on the issues". And I simply stated that I have the right to base my vote on whatever I chose to base it on. Whether it be the issues at hand, his name, his race or any thing else. I am not one of those people to try and sway your opinion. You are completely entitled to it. I 100% respect your choice in voting for Obama. I am proud that as an american you are going to stand up for your beliefs and your opinions and stand up for who you believe should be the next president and cast your vote. I commend you for that. As I stated before, the original poster asked us "in our heart of hearts" what our thoughts were. I also expressed that it sounded strange but for whatever reason I can not get past his name. September 11 had a big impact on my life and I just can not bring myself to vote for someone that makes me think of that horrible day every time you say his name. Trivial as it may seem. However, names aside, I am a republican and proud to say it and I do not agree with Obama's ideas and views. Most importantly being is idea to immediately bring home our troops. Then did all those people die for nothing? All our loved ones, brothers, sisters, fathers, aunts, uncles etc died for nothing because we just call it quits and give up and bring everyone home. I, notice that I said I, this is my opinion, think we need to sta and finish what we started. War is never a good thing but those men and women were brave enough to take the position and do what they thought was right. I support them 150%.

Babram- your kidding right? If you go back and read what I said, "someone named Hussein played a part" I did not say he was completely responsible for the attacks. If you dont understand that Saddam Hussein, Iraq, Osama Bin Laden and all the others are all connected then you would be confused by my comment. As far as questioning my right to vote, you stated that we should "vote on the issues".



Your information is wrong. Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/12/september11.usa2)

Tuesday September 12 2006 03.54 BST Article history

"George Bush last night admitted that Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 9/11 terror attacks, but he asked Americans to support a war in Iraq that he said was the defining struggle of our age.
On a day of sorrow and remembrance, beginning with a moment of silence at Ground Zero and ending in a prime time TV address from the Oval Office, Mr Bush tried to steel Americans for the long war ahead against al-Qaida which he described as an epochal struggle.

His speech was also focused on November's congressional elections where the Republicans face a groundswell of discontent about the war in Iraq.

The president conceded some crucial ideological ground, formally disavowing the neo-conservative accusation that Saddam had played a role in the attacks on September 11 2001. But he was unapologetic about the decision to invade Iraq.

"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Mr Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat - and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.

"The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

The admission that Saddam had no connection to the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon was a departure for a president who is famously averse to any expression of regret. But Mr Bush, angling to regain the trust of US voters in his leadership of the war on terror, made another display of humility, admitting to other unspecified mistakes in the war on Iraq.

However, the president brushed aside any idea of an early exit from Iraq, saying a withdrawal of US forces would hand a victory to al-Qaida.

"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us," Mr Bush said.

"If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened ... they will gain a new safe haven ... and they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement."

Last night's address crowned a series of speeches intended to retune the political agenda to the Republicans' traditionally strong suit: national security. Although the 2,600 US forces killed in Iraq now approaches the toll on September 11 and polls this month showed some 60% of Americans opposed to the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, Mr Bush continues to inspire confidence for his leadership on terrorism and in matters of national security.

With that in mind, Mr Bush moved last night to cast himself as a wartime leader in the mould of the two US presidents who presided over the epic battles of the last century. Both were Democrats: Franklin Roosevelt against Germany and Japan in the second world war, and Harry Truman in the cold war.

Mr Bush said he was leading a struggle that in these early days may seem just as daunting as the beginning of the second world war. But he said that the war on terror was as much an existential struggle, and that America could not afford to lose heart now, despite the high cost in Iraq.

"The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation," he said. "If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons." "



On the voting issue, I said, "vote on the issues folks." Not that you had no right to vote. Big difference.

Obama has it... :)

Your information is wrong. Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/12/september11.usa2)

Tuesday September 12 2006 03.54 BST Article history

"George Bush last night admitted that Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 9/11 terror attacks, but he asked Americans to support a war in Iraq that he said was the defining struggle of our age.
On a day of sorrow and remembrance, beginning with a moment of silence at Ground Zero and ending in a prime time TV address from the Oval Office, Mr Bush tried to steel Americans for the long war ahead against al-Qaida which he described as an epochal struggle.

His speech was also focused on November's congressional elections where the Republicans face a groundswell of discontent about the war in Iraq.

The president conceded some crucial ideological ground, formally disavowing the neo-conservative accusation that Saddam had played a role in the attacks on September 11 2001. But he was unapologetic about the decision to invade Iraq.

"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Mr Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat - and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.

"The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

The admission that Saddam had no connection to the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon was a departure for a president who is famously averse to any expression of regret. But Mr Bush, angling to regain the trust of US voters in his leadership of the war on terror, made another display of humility, admitting to other unspecified mistakes in the war on Iraq.

However, the president brushed aside any idea of an early exit from Iraq, saying a withdrawal of US forces would hand a victory to al-Qaida.

"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us," Mr Bush said.

"If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened ... they will gain a new safe haven ... and they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement."

Last night's address crowned a series of speeches intended to retune the political agenda to the Republicans' traditionally strong suit: national security. Although the 2,600 US forces killed in Iraq now approaches the toll on September 11 and polls this month showed some 60% of Americans opposed to the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, Mr Bush continues to inspire confidence for his leadership on terrorism and in matters of national security.

With that in mind, Mr Bush moved last night to cast himself as a wartime leader in the mould of the two US presidents who presided over the epic battles of the last century. Both were Democrats: Franklin Roosevelt against Germany and Japan in the second world war, and Harry Truman in the cold war.

Mr Bush said he was leading a struggle that in these early days may seem just as daunting as the beginning of the second world war. But he said that the war on terror was as much an existential struggle, and that America could not afford to lose heart now, despite the high cost in Iraq.

"The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation," he said. "If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons." "



On the voting issue, I said, "vote on the issues folks." Not that you had no right to vote. Big difference.


Again, I said they are all "connected". That is a big difference. Your misunderstanding.

Again, I said they are all "connected". That is a big difference. Your misunderstanding.Hello k:

Please refers us to ANYTHING, other than your imagination or what your pastor says, that connects them. You DO know, don't you, that these things ARE knowable? We don't have to guess.

Don't you think that if they WERE connected, that the dufus in chief would have used THAT as a reason why we invaded?? Of course, he DID use it, and it was proven not to be so.

excon

Who said anything about my pastor?? You guys are taking this discussion way to serious. All these posts are our each individual opinions. I don't believe I have EVER criticized you for your opinion EXCON And yes you can go on the internet and read absolutely anything about either individual and they are in some way connected. Maybe not directly or in your face connected but they have ties in some similar areas.

Hello again, k:

Didn't sound like opinion. Sounded like you knew something. Still sounds like you do... But if it's just your OPINION that they're connected, then you're welcome to it.

excon

It is my opinion based on what I have read. Please understand, somehow the point of my opinion got lost. I stated that in some way they were connected. I did not say that they both were completely responsible for the 9-11 attacks. However, we can not deny that they have shown that there were communications between the two for example here is one such collaboration:


From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
By Stephen F. Hayes
11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11

Editor's Note, 1/27/04: In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank reported that "Vice President Cheney . . . in an interview this month with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the 'best source of information' an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified information."

Here's the Stephen F. Hayes article to which the vice president was referring.

-JVL


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."

Hello k:

Stephen F. Hayes is a columnist for The Weekly Standard, a prominent American Neoconservative magazine. Hayes has been selected as the official biographer for Vice President Richard Cheney.

Douglas J. Feith is a neoconservative who served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for United States President George W. Bush from July 2001 until he resigned from his position effective August 8, 2005. His official responsibilities included the formulation of defense planning guidance and forces policy, United States Department of Defense (DoD) relations with foreign countries, and DoD's role in U.S. Government interagency policymaking. His tenure in that position was marked by controversy.

Upon his resignation, Feith joined the faculty of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, as a Professor and Distinguished Practitioner in National Security Policy, for a two year stint despite strong objections from the student body and faculty. His contract was not renewed due to strong opposition from members of the faculty, despite "really good" teaching reviews.

I suggest that your sources are biased toward the neocon agenda and have a stake in the outcome of their reports.

excon

So I guess this direct quote from our current president means nothing either?

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."
- President George W. Bush, 06/17/04

It has been proven that these Iraqi intelligence officers did in fact meet with Bin Laden. That is the "connection" I speak of.

So I guess this direct quote from our current president means nothing either? Hello again, k:

It means that George W. Bush, our commander in chief, is a liar.

If either YOU or HE understood that one group is Shia Muslims, and the other are Sunni Muslims, you wouldn't be making such outlandish claims. Saddam HATED Shia Muslims. Iran is a Shia Muslim state. Iraq and Iran fought a war that killed MILLIONS of their own, because they HATE each other. They do NOT have the same goals.

They were killing each other in Iraq recently too.

excon

I guess you just know everything. Honestly calling someone a liar when you do not sit next to that person every single day, or have played a part in every single report, conversation and dealings is kind of childish.

Hello again:

Like I said, these things are KNOWABLE. They're NOT guesswork. But, I'm not going to convince you. Let's leave it that you have an opinion, because that's all it is.

excon

As is yours

The fact that Iran actively supports Hamas should be enough evidence to forever put the canard that Shia and Sunni will not cooperate to rest .

But OBL is a Sunni and so was Saddam so that argument doesn't work anyway.

The idea that a so called secular Sunni like Saddam could not cooperate with AQ ,a radical jihadist organization against a common enemy is also a stretch .

I have read and cross referenced this issue for a long time and I have yet to see any significant repudiation of Steve Hayes facts .

However ;regardless whether I think there is a lot of truth there ;in fact the Bush Administration never made a direct linkage .

Again your mistaken. Look at the chronological order. Your quote of Dubya was dated 6/17/04. At that time he was still not in denial and/or lying through his silver spooned mouth.


So I guess this direct quote from our current president means nothing either?

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."

- President George W. Bush, 06/17/04
It has been proven that these Iraqi intelligence officers did in fact meet with Bin Laden. That is the "connection" I speak of.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now look at what happened two years later when reality hit George W Bush between the eyes and he owned up.

Tuesday September 12 2006 03.54 BST Article history

"George Bush last night admitted that Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 9/11 terror attacks, but he asked Americans to support a war in Iraq that he said was the defining struggle of our age.

On a day of sorrow and remembrance, beginning with a moment of silence at Ground Zero and ending in a prime time TV address from the Oval Office, Mr Bush tried to steel Americans for the long war ahead against al-Qaida which he described as an epochal struggle.

His speech was also focused on November's congressional elections where the Republicans face a groundswell of discontent about the war in Iraq."

Bobby you are comparing 2 different things.

In the first case Bush is describing a linkage between Saddam and AQ . There is substantial evidence of connections there .

In the 2nd instance Bush is saying that there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9-11 . I'm not so sure about that ,in my view the jury is still out . Perhaps President Bush decided it was best to move on so he expediently conceded the point. Suffice it to say I disagree with his conclusion . History will most likely sort this out.

In the 2nd instance Bush is saying that there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9-11 .


Tom, there's little doubt that we (US citizens) are on several counties most hated list. We are! Saddam Hussein was a dictator that was punished, rightly so, with a death penalty. He was a ruthless murderer Iraq, killing his own people. I admit it's very difficult to know when Dubya is telling the truth. But then again, I didn't vote for the him either time, and till this day Osama Bin Laden, the culprit terrorist behind 9/11, still hasn't been brought to justice. Barack Obama is running for president and between now and November 4th, as long as he doesn't change his name to "John McCain," I'm going to vote for him.

Obama traveled overseas on his Indonesian passport when he was age 20. Why didn't he use his AMERICAN PASSPORT? Because he didn't have one as he was still a citizen of Indonesia.

Where is the official seal on his alleged Hawaii birth certificate? I don't find any and neither does anyone else. It's a forgery.

How did his mother miraculously fly from Kenya to Hawaii when she was 9 months pregnant when airlines deny pregnant women on their planes?

I think you are a disinformation agent. Anyone who brags that their cousins are in the Mafia and in prison is certainly a hoot. Anyone real person in the Mafia does not brag about it because there is no Mafia according to them and they don't go around telling other people of their business. This proves that you are a fake. You've been watching too much Hollywood pablum. I don't think you would recognize a real person who is actually in the Mafia if your life depended on it as they are highly secretive of their associations. The Italian Scicilian Mafia is a highly secretive organization. They do not banty about this information.

Bobby you are comparing 2 different things.

In the first case Bush is describing a linkage between Saddam and AQ . There is substantial evidence of connections there .

In the 2nd instance Bush is saying that there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9-11 . I'm not so sure about that ,in my view the jury is still out . Perhaps President Bush decided it was best to move on so he expediently conceded the point. Suffice it to say I disagree with his conclusion . History will most likely sort this out.

FINALLY a voice of reason. It is two different things. And I did not say that Saddam Hussein played a part in 9-11. All I was saying was there was a "link" between Osam and Hussein. I agree with you as well that Im not convinced that somewhere along the line Saddam Hussein knew of the attacks planned on the US. Knowing how dangerous both of these men were and are, Im not sure that if I were Saddam Hussein that I would have admitted to any involvement with him either! Whether someone thinks that George Bush lied or not does not erase facts that were proven that there were meetings had between Osama and Husseins people. You can't erase facts.

Twinkiedooter_ there are so many discrepancies in Barrack Obama's history etc. I am a little put off by the fact that his father was involved in a pretty shady operation back in Kenya. Does the apple fall far from the tree? Why did his father leave Kenya and then die in a car accident shortly after. Seems a little strange to me. And the fact that Barrack Obama has turned his back on family members that he promised he would put on the ticket with him and then decided not to. I certainly don't want to be responsible for voting for someone who might possibly have an ulterior motive. I know its probably far fetched but I will tell you that if someone would have come to me back in 1999 or 2000 and told me that terrorists were going to hiijack our commercial planes and fly them into the world trade centers and the pentagon. I would have looked at them like they had three heads. One never knows. I would rather vote for someone who served in our military and actually stood up for us as a country and is proud to have done so.

Obama traveled overseas on his Indonesian passport when he was age 20. Why didn't he use his AMERICAN PASSPORT? Because he didn't have one as he was still a citizen of Indonesia.

Where is the official seal on his alleged Hawaii birth certificate? I don't find any and neither does anyone else. It's a forgery.

How did his mother miraculously fly from Kenya to Hawaii when she was 9 months pregnant when airlines deny pregnant women on their planes?


Pssst... Detective Purple Lips,

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html)

"Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.

You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.

The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.

We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641."



snopes.com: Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen of the U.S.? (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp)



I think you are a disinformation agent. Anyone who brags that their cousins are in the Mafia and in prison is certainly a hoot. Anyone real person in the Mafia does not brag about it because there is no Mafia according to them and they don't go around telling other people of their business. This proves that you are a fake. You've been watching too much Hollywood pablum. I don't think you would recognize a real person who is actually in the Mafia if your life depended on it as they are highly secretive of their associations. The Italian Scicilian Mafia is a highly secretive organization. They do not banty about this information.

Hey little old motor mouth, the word is "Sicilian." I live, work, and breath Las Vegas, sugar. The Sicilian mob, is not the same as the American mob. How little you know. I was not bragging. That was not about me, but my cousins and only to point out the fact there is nobody that has a perfect family for all you hypocrites.

There is no American Mob. They are American Gangsters or American Criminals.

You don't know how to spell either. The word is breathe not breath.

And posting the crap from snopes just shows how ignorant you truly are. I can spend all day going onto the web and playing cut and paste. That does not impress me one iota that you go to the pro-Obama sites and play cut and paste. I, too, can go to anti-Obama sites and play the same game you do.

Sherman Skolnick exposed this fraud for what he truly is. Sherman said a few years ago during the Hurricaine Katrina disaster dated 9/7/05
http://www.rense.com/general67/over80.htm
"2. Did Russian president Putin, suspecting he might be blamed for Hurricane Katrina, jump the gun? Just prior to Katrina hitting the Gulf, Putin noted that two U.S. Senators were in Russia snooping around off-limits secret facilities. That is U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D., Ill.) originally from the former British colony of Kenya and a year previous, before Obama was elected, was publicly fingered by me as a British spy; and his accomplice in Russia, U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R. Ind.). "

Sherman Skolnick was a life long resident of Chicago and knew all about the corrupt Chicago political machine. He did plenty of exposing of crooked judges and politicians in his lifetime. Chicago being his specialty you could say. Why would Sherman Skolnick say this 3 years ago about him? Odd, isn't it? Sherman was never wrong about things like this either.

You still didn't address my question of why Obama was using an Indonesian passport at age 20? He never reaffirmed his US Citizenship. He lost his citizenship when he lived in Indonesia. Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship until 2006 and the US did not recognize dual citizenship with any country that did not reciprocate dual citizenship. He cannot produce the reaffirmation of his US citizenship.

The political machine of Chicago can elect virtually anyone they so choose regardless of what country they have their citizenship in. Grow up.

Pssst... Detective Purple Lips,

Hey little old motor mouth

Frankly, I do not appreciate such childish slurs. I don't call you names. You are running the mouth here trying to push this jerk down our throats if anything and I don't like it.

And your factcheck is run by Annenberg. Odd how Obama has known these people for years, both Mr. and Mrs. Annenberg. He's dead but she isn't. I really would not believe a thing that factcheck has to offer quite frankly.

You are running the mouth here trying to push this jerk down our throats if anything and I don't like it.


That's classic!! I'm laughing so hard I have tears coming down my cheeks. :D


There is no American Mob. They are American Gangsters or American Criminals..

Apparently you get your education believing fictitious programs on the idiot box. The American mafia is an offshoot of the Sicilian mafia. American Mafia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia)



You don't know how to spell either. The word is breathe not breath..

Use the spell check then. It was a lot closer than "Scicilian."



And posting the crap from snopes just shows how ignorant you truly are. I can spend all day going onto the web and playing cut and paste. That does not impress me one iota that you go to the pro-Obama sites and play cut and paste. I, too, can go to anti-Obama sites and play the same game you do.

Oh! For using "snopes.com" and "factcheck.org," I'm ignorant? Wow! I'll certainly never accuse you of having the facts.


What's Your Evidence?: Is Factcheck.org "in the tank for" Obama? Is Factcheck.org owned by the Chicago Annenberg Foundation? (http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/10/is-factcheckorg.html)



Sherman Skolnick exposed this fraud for what he truly is. Sherman said a few years ago during the Hurricaine Katrina disaster dated 9/7/05
Overthrow Of The American Republic - Part 80 Hurricane Katrina - Who Benefits? (http://www.rense.com/general67/over80.htm)
"2. Did Russian president Putin, suspecting he might be blamed for Hurricane Katrina, jump the gun? Just prior to Katrina hitting the Gulf, Putin noted that two U.S. Senators were in Russia snooping around off-limits secret facilities. That is U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D., Ill.) originally from the former British colony of Kenya and a year previous, before Obama was elected, was publicly fingered by me as a British spy; and his accomplice in Russia, U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R., Ind.). "

Sherman Skolnick was a life long resident of Chicago and knew all about the corrupt Chicago political machine. He did plenty of exposing of crooked judges and politicians in his lifetime. Chicago being his specialty you could say. Why would Sherman Skolnick say this 3 years ago about him? Odd, isn't it? Sherman was never wrong about things like this either.

You still didn't address my question of why Obama was using an Indonesian passport at age 20? He never reaffirmed his US Citizenship. He lost his citizenship when he lived in Indonesia. Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship until 2006 and the US did not recognize dual citizenship with any country that did not reciprocate dual citizenship. He cannot produce the reaffirmation of his US citizenship.

The political machine of Chicago can elect virtually anyone they so choose regardless of what country they have their citizenship in. Grow up.

Look Ma Kettle... Republican candidate John McCain is in the political fight of his life and if there was any possibility that Obama could be knocked out of this election, even by technicality of citizenship, he would had already done so. His financial backer and wife, Cindy McCain, has more money tied up in few brokerage funds than most local small town banks. He can afford the best investigation team available and judging from his barrage of recent negative campaign TV ads he's desperate. This is John's second and last chance at the White House. BTW "Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982."



What's Your Evidence?: August 2008 (http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/08/index.html)

Babram_ I have to be honest hear and say that you are acting like a true liberal if I ever saw one! Why is it that us conservatives can have nice political conversations and share our views and opinions and you liberals argue to the point of resorting to name calling? You can cut and paste as many excerpts and articals that you want to, you are not going to change our minds on who we are going to vote for. We on the other hand are simply telling you the reasons that we are not going to vote for Hussein , sorry Barrack Obama. There isn't a darn thing you can say to change our minds. We are not trying to change your mind but you quite frankly are trying so hard to change ours that when you see its not working or someone proves your point wrong, you start name calling. Such a liberal!!

There isnt a darn thing you can say to change our minds. So why are you posting here?
Posting negative comments about the candidate you don't support. Such a conservative!!

Here are your words: "I hate it when people get so unbelievably angry over politics."
Follow your own advice.

Hello k:

I would hope Babram sounds like a true liberal, because he proudly IS.

But YOU, on the other hand, have exposed yourself as a racist by suggesting, somehow, that his middle name means something other than what YOUR middle name means.

I knew you couldn't help yourself. It just kind of comes out of you guys. Poor girl.

excon

PS> Besides. I don't know why you think calling someone a liberal is a slur. You've been listening to entirely too much Rush Limprod.

^^
Proud to be a liberal!

Again somehow you got offended by me calling you guys liberals... you are aren't you? And how unintelligent you sound by quoting me and calling me a racist because I said his name sounds a certain way to me. If you took the time to go back and read the beginning of that comment, I said that I would love to see a black president, it would finally show that we are all over this racism thing. But as usual you only read what you wanted to read. I am in no way shape or form trying to change anyone's mind. You have the absolute right to be liberal and vote for who you want to. You took me calling you a liberal as a dig?? Why?? If you all are so proud to be liberals then when somenone calls you one don't get so defensive. You can call me a conservative until your faces turn blue and it doesn't hurt my feelings. If you look up the definitions for both words in the dictionary maybe you would understand a little bit more. So call me conservative all you want, its OK go ahead. I am proud of the fact that I am conservative with my money, and able to provide for my families future because of it. I don't just throw money around and spend it just for the sake of spending it foolishly. So when it comes to being called a conservative, it makes me proud to be called that. When this discussion first started I simply voiced my opinions just like every one else on here and even said that I knew it sounded silly that I get caught up on his name. But that is how I feel. His name is not the only reason that I will not be voting for him. But it wasn't until I was attacked that I voiced the rest of my opinion and was then attacked more for doing so. Policitcs are never going to be an easy thing for people to talk about. I respect everyone's opinions on here in every aspect. You have your reasons for voting for Obama and I have said it more than once, I respect your opinions. But when someone else gives you the reasons for why they don't want to vote for them, you go off on a tangent of cutting and pasting and trying to prove everyone wrong. You have based your opinions on what you have heard and read and so have I. Leave it at that. Calling someone names like motor mouth and ridiculous things like that is just childish and you deep down know that. What purpose does it serve? Don't you want us to view you as an intelligent person that we can have an intelligent political conversations with? Maybe I would listen a little more intently if you weren't using kindergarten words like "ma kettle". If you want to be taken seriously and heard as an adult, then present yourself as one. As far as calling me a racist, I think that you sunk extremely low this time excon, even for you! I have often agreed with you on other topics on this forum. I think that you give very good insight to peoples issues an often have good advice. But to come out and call someone racist because I don't agree with you on who to vote for as president?? I get the impression that when you are reading these posts that you are getting so mad on the other end and just typing feverishly trying to get your next bash in, take a deep breathe. Everything is going to be fine, you will be allowed to vote for Obama and no one is going to stop you. I will never try to change someone's mind, because I don't want someone trying to change mine. We are all entitled to read what we want and to believe what we want, everyone needs to respect that.

Too long, didn't read.

His name is not the only reason that I will not be voting for him.
For you:

P5YQ1oCguYs

Hello again, k:

Couple things. I'm an individual. I don't judge YOU on what some of your crank right wingers say. I judge you on what YOU say. So, please, don't talk to me, as though I'm a group, and I won't do that to you.

Next. I don't get mad. I don't take it personal. I get informed and argue from THAT perspective. You somehow, don't like that I'm informed. You've even derided me for it. You infer that because you're NOT informed, that nobody else is either. That's kind of the mantra of your fellow conservatives. You don't trust anybody with an education. Check out the red and blue map if you have any doubts about that. You call educated people "elite" as though that's a slur too. You DO represent the conservative cause well, however.

But, let me ask you this: What if Barack Obama had a pregnant daughter who wasn't married? What would you be saying about him then? What if Barack Obama had an affair and ditched his wife for a brand new trophy wife? What you be saying about him then? What if Michelle Obama got herself addicted to prescription drugs, and forged documents to get them? What would you be saying about her? What if Barack Obama, instead of serving on the Law Review at Harvard, graduated right near the bottom of his class? What would you be saying about him then? What if Michelle Obama, instead of graduating from Harvard with a law degree, didn't go to college, and wanted to be called the "First Mamma"? What would you say about her?

I know EXACTLY what you would say.

excon

Excon, Let me first of all say that if I judged you as anything other than an individual I aplogize for that. That was not my intention. However, you just asked me not to judge you in that way and then turned around in your second paragraph and judged me that way. You assumed that my opinions are based off what you defined as me not being "informed". You do not know what my level of education is or just exactly how informed I may or may not be. Yes I agree that there are some things that have been said about both candidates that I don't like or agree with. But based on my beliefs I vote for who I think would be the best at running our country.
To address your questions. First of all if Barrack Obama had a pregnant daughter that was not married. I would first of all completely understand what he would be going through. As a mother of a teenager myself I understand the reality of the fact that no matter how much love, discipline and structure we give our children there are some things that are out of my control. I have never and would never be one of those parents who sits there and says "my kid would never do that". I hope that my children wouldn't but that is a reality. The best that I can do is educate my children on right from wrong and arm them with the tools to make good choices.
Secondly if Barrack Obama had an affair and ditched his wife for what you called a "trophy wife" I would first understand that there are always two sides to every story. Having been divorced myself I can tell you that to this day I still hear stories from mutual friends about how he perceived our divorce and then there is my story. We are all human, is cheating right? No absolutely not but we don't know all the circumstances surrounding their divorce, we are only hearing the points that make him look bad because that's good leverage on Barrack Obama's side to slash McCain and bring that up. Need I remind you of another Democrat President, Bill Clinton who cheated on his wife while in office... I imagine that you weren't thinking about that. Thirdly, if Michelle Obama got herself addicted to prescription drugs and forged documents to get them, that would be a horrible thing and I would feel terrible for her. I would hope that her husband would get her the proper treatment and that she would be charged appropriately, because I am not voting for Mrs McCain, I am voting for her husband. And last but not least, if Barrack Obama graduated at the bottom of his class in law school, I guess I would chalk it up that maybe a law degree is not his cup of tea. And it seems as though it wasn't because he is not some high end lawyer right now is he? He chose politics instead and ran for senate and now president. So a law degree is irrelevant to me for either president. We are not voting on the next lawyer for the US we are voting on the next president. As far as Mrs McCain choosing to not go to college and saying she wanted to be called the First Mamma. She has the right to choose whether she wants to go to college or not .And again I am not voting for her, I am voting for her husband. I am really not sure why you are so focused on the spouses of the candidates. Each candidate is their own person and their spouses are not the ones being elected.
I would like to add that its unfortunate that you can't hear the tone in my voice when reading my posts because I have not once gotten mad or upset. I am a realist and know that opinions are simply heard. I am not looking to change anyone's mind. It is simply interesting to hear everyone's views and opinions without taking jabs at them for it.

Babram_ I have to be honest hear and say that you are acting like a true liberal if I ever saw one!! Why is it that us conservatives can have nice political conversations and share our views and opinions and you liberals argue to the point of resorting to name calling?? You can cut and paste as many excerpts and articals that you want to, you are not going to change our minds on who we are going to vote for. We on the other hand are simply telling you the reasons that we are not going to vote for Hussein , sorry Barrack Obama. There isnt a darn thing you can say to change our minds. We are not trying to change your mind but you quite frankly are trying so hard to change ours that when you see its not working or someone proves your point wrong, you start name calling. Such a liberal!!!!


Blah blah blah... "such a liberal." For the record, Excon, myself, and some others are not here to change your mind on the candidate of your choice. To the contrary, I use the opportunity in discussion boards, such as this one, as an example for others that may decide to choose differently than yourself. You're correct in that I can be very liberal. However what you don't know is that it depends on the issue. FYI I'm registered as an Independent that is voting for the Democrat this election. I have supported Republicans when I thought it was deemed beneficial for the progress of our country. Obviously that hasn't happened in a long time. Nonetheless, in this particular post I was admonishing a few arguments that are prejudice, but mostly ignorant.

BabramI appreciate your honesty and opinion. Most people are not comfortable enough to say what you just did, I am grateful you were.