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%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kanicky73

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

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... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

Your information is wrong. Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kanicky73

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kanicky73

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kanicky73

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

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.

"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.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

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?
"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

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!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kanicky73

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kanicky73

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

---

For you:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kanicky73

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.