Obama and "The Left"

[libertyworld]

By Thomas Sowell:

Although Senator Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far left individuals over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest and decent people on the left. But these have not been the ones that Obama has been allied with-- allied, not merely "associated" with.

ACORN is not just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of thuggery, including going to bankers' homes to harass them and their families, in order to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings.

Nor was Barack Obama's relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being their attorney long ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars their way. Money talks-- and what it says is more important than a politician's rhetoric in an election year.

Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort-- and both are recipients of money from Obama.

Bill Ayers is not just "an education professor" who has some left-wing views. He is a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of resentment into the schools-- an effort using money from a foundation that Obama headed.

Nor has the help all been one way. During the last debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, Senator McCain mentioned that Senator Obama's political campaign began in Bill Ayers' home. Obama immediately denied it and McCain had no real follow-up.

It was not this year's political campaign that Obama began in Bill Ayers' home but an earlier campaign for the Illinois state legislature. Barack Obama can match Bill Clinton in slickness at parsing words to evade accusations.

That is one way to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a nuclear Iran.

People who think that talking points on this or that problem constitute "the real issues" that we should be talking about, instead of Obama's track record, ignore a very fundamental fact about representative government.

Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States.

Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called "real issues."

A candidate who spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter, rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.

If Ronald Reagan had attempted to run for President of the United States as a liberal, the media would have been all over him. His support for Barry Goldwater would have been in the headlines and in editorial denunciations across the country.

No way would he have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and Barry Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night.

If Barack Obama had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he has always stood for.

Some people take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to show that he is "pragmatic" rather than ideological.

But political zig-zags show no such moderation as some seem to assume. Lenin zig-zagged and so did Hitler. Zig-zags may show no more than that someone is playing the public for fools.

Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowel...p;comments=true

[Splodgenessabounds]

If Obama gets elected on tuesday, I shall really worry for your sanity

[InHuman]

OH dear god.

What have we done!??!

[supercar]

One of the most misleading aspects of Obama's campaign is the phrase 'change we can believe in'.

During an interview with Lara Logan of CBS News on July 20,2008 Obama himself admitted there is no difference between his policy for Afghanistan and Bush's policy for Afghanistan:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/20/...in4275864.shtml

Logan: "Under what circumstances would you authorize unilateral U.S. action against targets inside tribal areas?"

Obama: "What I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaeda targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should. My hope is that it doesn't come to that - that in fact, the Pakistan government would recognize that if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights that we should fire or we should capture him."

Logan: "Isn't that the case now? I mean, do you really think that if U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights and the Pakistanis said 'No,' that they wouldn't fire or wouldn't go after him?"

Obama: "I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, 'Well, you know, you shouldn't go around saying that.' But I don't think there's any doubt that that should be our policy."

Logan: "But [not going after him] is the current policy."

Obama: "I believe it is the current policy."

Logan: "So there's no change, then?"

Obama: "I don't think there's going to be a change there."

[Splodgenessabounds]

One of the most misleading aspects of Obama's campaign is the phrase 'change we can believe in'.

During an interview with Lara Logan of CBS News on July 20,2008 Obama himself admitted there is no difference between his policy for Afghanistan and Bush's policy for Afghanistan:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/20/...in4275864.shtml

Logan: "Under what circumstances would you authorize unilateral U.S. action against targets inside tribal areas?"

Obama: "What I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaeda targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should. My hope is that it doesn't come to that - that in fact, the Pakistan government would recognize that if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights that we should fire or we should capture him."

Logan: "Isn't that the case now? I mean, do you really think that if U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights and the Pakistanis said 'No,' that they wouldn't fire or wouldn't go after him?"

Obama: "I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, 'Well, you know, you shouldn't go around saying that.' But I don't think there's any doubt that that should be our policy."

Logan: "But [not going after him] is the current policy."

Obama: "I believe it is the current policy."

Logan: "So there's no change, then?"

Obama: "I don't think there's going to be a change there."

His slogan isn't "Change in Afghanistan we can believe in"

I think change is used in a more general sense. Which I still think is bull, Bush is a politician, Obama's a politician. Where's the change?

[Godsnmbr1]

Haha, who wrote this crap? Jeremy Wright is a reckless demagogue spreading hate, I never knew.

[libertyworld]

Haha, who wrote this crap?

If you are unaware of who Thomas Sowell is, the internet can help you be more knowledgeable.

As for the lack of class and civility there...

Time and maturity and life experience are still good ways to acquire those.

[ninjadude]

again it's not "news". It's some right wing wacko opinion.

Do not: Post propaganda, smear or hate pieces about political figures or candidates.

[libertyworld]

again it's not "news". It's some right wing wacko opinion.

You sure do have an aversion to differing opinions, don't you. How very 'liberal'.

"News" is not the qualifier here.

When opinion is characterized as "propaganda, smear or hate pieces", something has gone dreadfully wrong.

Forums are places for expressing and sharing opinion. Get used to it.

You might not want to show such rigid, self righteous intolerance, otherwise known as bigotry.

Makes you seem insecure.

[SilverCougar]

*facepalm and headdesk*

Oh ffs.. This just *DRIPS* fear mongering and propaganda..

[+Sherapy]

You sure do have an aversion to differing opinions, don't you. How very 'liberal'.

"News" is not the qualifier here.

When opinion is characterized as "propaganda, smear or hate pieces", something has gone dreadfully wrong.

Forums are places for expressing and sharing opinion. Get used to it.

You might not want to show such rigid, self righteous intolerance, otherwise known as bigotry.

Makes you seem insecure.

its not a opine its propaganda or a ad hominen tantrum..designed to hate monger...

if you have a argument that is one thing but this prattle....

Edited November 2, 2008 by Tangerine Sheri

[questionmark]

*facepalm and headdesk*

Oh ffs.. This just *DRIPS* fear mongering and propaganda..

The last straw is always... but wait...haven't they been doing it all along?

[SilverCougar]

The last straw is always... but wait...haven't they been doing it all along?

I'm sure if Obama sneezes wrong we'd be subjected to how evil he is because of it.

[Tiggs]

My favourite part was the comparison to both Lenin and Hitler in the same sentence.

Edited November 2, 2008 by Tiggs

[Starr Destin Mathews]

I'm sure if Obama sneezes wrong we'd be subjected to how evil he is because of it.

And all the dems and libs would go running, to cover it up or make an excuse, I don't think it's fair that other politicians careers have tanked, for far less than some of the stuff, that Obama has hiding in his closet, but I've said it before, and I'll say it again.Saint Obama, can do no wrong.If you guys don't like what these topics about him say, it's obvious what it's gonna be about, in the title.You should just not even come look.It's not prattle, these are facts, they happened, how you look at them is opinion, but it doesn't change what these people, have done or said.

[questionmark]

My favourite part was the comparison to both Lenin and Hitler in the same sentence.

You mean where he Godwinned his own post ? Wondered how long it would take for somebody to spot that.

[Fluffybunny]

You mean where he Godwinned his own post ? Wondered how long it would take for somebody to spot that.

Political melodrama at its' finest...

[SilverCougar]

And all the dems and libs would go running, to cover it up or make an excuse, I don't think it's fair that other politicians careers have tanked, for far less than some of the stuff, that Obama has hiding in his closet, but I've said it before, and I'll say it again.Saint Obama, can do no wrong.If you guys don't like what these topics about him say, it's obvious what it's gonna be about, in the title.You should just not even come look.It's not prattle, these are facts, they happened, how you look at them is opinion, but it doesn't change what these people, have done or said.

Thanks.. needed the laugh.

Gotta love how the Republicans/conservitives have been the ones to put Obama up on this pedistal. Rather amusing. The OP is propaganda. That simple.

[SoCrazes]

Drinking the ACORN Kool-Aid: How Cries of Voter Fraud Cover Up GOP Elections Theft

While the Republicans had the distracted media searching for links between Obama and ACORN, RNC operatives were busily completing one of the most massive voter suppression and purging efforts in American history, stealing hundreds of thousands of Democratic votes across the embattled swing states and striving to arrange chaos and endless lines at the voting booths.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-ken...i_b_138390.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6802228062297352475

http://www.gregpalast.com/rove-pick-for-us...-bbc-documents/

[SQLserver]

You beat me to it, SoCrazes.

[ninjadude]

You sure do have an aversion to differing opinions, don't you. How very 'liberal'.

"News" is not the qualifier here.

When opinion is characterized as "propaganda, smear or hate pieces", something has gone dreadfully wrong.

Forums are places for expressing and sharing opinion. Get used to it.

You might not want to show such rigid, self righteous intolerance, otherwise known as bigotry.

Makes you seem insecure.

You see that's where you are COMPLETELY wrong. This is a NEWS forum and discussions about that NEWS or actually post a NEWS story and then discuss it. READ UP. It is NOT about opinion as the start of a thread. If you want to discuss the conservative opinion crap you post, find one that is not about NEWS. This says more about YOU than anything I say.

Edited November 4, 2008 by ninjadude

[AROCES]

Drinking the ACORN Kool-Aid: How Cries of Voter Fraud Cover Up GOP Elections Theft

While the Republicans had the distracted media searching for links between Obama and ACORN, RNC operatives were busily completing one of the most massive voter suppression and purging efforts in American history, stealing hundreds of thousands of Democratic votes across the embattled swing states and striving to arrange chaos and endless lines at the voting booths.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-ken...i_b_138390.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6802228062297352475

http://www.gregpalast.com/rove-pick-for-us...-bbc-documents/

Which party is against Voters ID?

Who is suppose to be in charge of those election precent? And give us just 10 PROVEN names out of the hundreds of thousand stolen Democratic votes, well???

[AROCES]

You beat me to it, SoCrazes.

Same with you, who is against voters ID?

And how was hundred of thousand of votes got stolen, please explain?