I watched the democrat debates last night and I was surprised to see Hillary really giving it to Barack Hussein Obama. It looked like Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolis were finally giving Obama the criticism he has so far avoided. He was asked about his relationship with the irreverent Jeremiah Wright, the self-avowed domestic terrorist William Ayers, and his general lack of experience. Obama's answers were lacking...big time.
What's interesting today, is that Obama is acting like a crybaby. He's whining that the debate was "irrelevant" and that no "issues" of substance were discussed for the first 45 minutes. Well, tell that to the 10 million plus viewers who stayed tuned in to the debate for the entire two hours. It would be reasonable to assert that if the questions were irrelevant and insignificant, that the viewers would tune into to something more entertaining. But the fact is that most people are interested to know why Obama is "friendly" with a known terrorist. A terrorist who was quoted on September 11, 2001 as saying that he does NOT regret bombing the Pentagon, the Capitol Building or New York city police stations. In fact, his only regret was that he couldn't do more damage.
And what did Gibson and Stephanopolous get for their even-handed questioning? They got lambasted by the liberal blogosphere and pundits. I guess liberals don't like it when their lapdog bites them. Maybe there are a few moderate liberals out there who are finally realizing that electing a socialist with friendly ties to terrorists, and who has a racist bigot as a spiritual mentor might be a problem. Maybe they're starting to realize that voting for a guy just because he speaks well isn't really a good reason.
Let's hope the rest of the populace who have had the wool pulled over their eyes will regain their sight soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Just wondering how you feel justified saying Obama "is" (as opposed to "was" decades ago) friendly with the terrorist? Also, do you have some justification for using his middle name? I've noticed others do that to imply that he's muslim or associated with middle eastern terrorists. By the way, I don't plan on voting for Obama -- that's not why I'm questioning your choice of words.
I can feel justified in saying "is" friendly with a terrorist for a few reasons. First, his presidential campaign said that he was "friendly" with William Ayers. Second, Obama went to William Ayer's home to seek advice when he decided to run for President. Third, Obama and Ayers sat on the board of a community group in Chicago for years, which didn't end "decades ago." I hope that's succinct enough for you.
Next, I feel justified in using Barack's middle name...because it's his middle name. I don't use it to imply he is Muslim, I know that he is not. I don't use it to say he is affiliated with middle eastern terrorists, I believe that he is not.
Interesting. So why did you pick Obama's connection with Ayers (who by the way, has done a lot since the '70s), and not focus on connections between Bush's administration and other terrorists?
As for Obama's middle name, why do you use his middle name and not others'?
So what if Ayers has done "lots since the '70s". Ayers, on September 11, 2001 (by coincidence) gave an interview to the New York Times and said that he did not regret the bombing of the Pentagon, the Capitol Building or New York City police stations. In fact, Ayers said that the only thing he did regret was that he didn't do more.
Lastly, Bush isn't running for President again. I don't know why so many Democrats try to make this election about Bush. Barack is the one running for President, that's why I focus on him. And, yes, I focus on him because I don't want him to be President.
A. I'm not a Democrat.
B. My more particular question about his middle name is, why do you use his middle name, and why do you not use others' middle names (others being other public figures whom you complain about, etc.)?
A. You're not a conservative. I don't know if you consider yourself independent or a member of the socialist party, but if you consistently vote for Democrats, I think its fair to label you a Democrat.
B. Because I can. If you want, I can start referring to McCain as John Sidney McCain.
Since you asked, I rarely vote for a democrat. And I certainly don't fit the modern definition of "conservative".
Anyway, I think we've narrowed down your use of Obama's middle name to "no good reason I care to disclose," which tells me you're doing it to further the popular belief that he's a middle eastern terrorist, or a muslim, or both. Hope you're glad to be in such good company as those to have such base, anti-intellectual leanings. Kind of contradicts your own stated purpose of the blog.
First, this is my blog so I can say whatever the heck I want. Secondly, I don't have to give a reason for anything I do and the use of Barack's middle name has nothing to do with either the assumptions or assertions your suggest. I guess you're going to have to get over it.
"Base, anti-intellectual leanings"...well, I've given sources and my own opinions. You, on the other hand, have provided not a single opinion other than to say that I am incorrect. That's not much at all. Anyone can boo-hoo about someone else's ideas, but until you offer something to the conversation I won't give much credence to the criticisms. Then again, that's typical of liberals. Complain that everyone else has it wrong, but offer nothing better.
On another note, I'm glad to see that you are so consumed by my opinions that you feel compelled to comment so frequently. I anticipate that your walls will eventually begin to crumble under the weight of the conservatism. I await your conversion.
Please don't mistake my posts for attempts to prevent you from your right to free speech. I just thought you were inviting a debate, and am challenging your statements -- especially the motivation for using Obama's middle name, and the various (mis)representations about Socialism and the Democrats.
It seems I hit a nerve by calling you on the motivation for using his middle name. I understand if you don't want to discuss that any more.
I have posted frequently because I also enjoy political debate.
I actually agree with you that liberals tend not to offer real solutions. Obviously, I don't consider myself a liberal. Liberals destroyed the populist movement, and the democratic socialist movement in this country.
Perhaps we could both move on from Obama (since neither of us want him to be president anyway), and focus on more concrete policies?
As far as converting when the "walls crumble", I hope you smiled when you said that :)
After the (hopefully democratic, peaceful) revolution, I know I'll still be smiling.
Don't misunderstand my tone. I get excited and I get more and more blunt the more excited I get. It's not intended to be rude, though I know it comes off that way sometimes.
I'm fine with debate, but it seemed to me that you weren't really debating anything other than I was wrong. I've always thought debate was where one party said that another was wrong...and gave reasons WHY the other was wrong.
As for moving on - I will continue to call Obama a socialist because I think he fits the definition.
Post a Comment