Obama - The Jihadist Candidate
Andy Remingron
with Islamists - those who embrace Islam's repressive theo-political-legal
code known as Shariah and who are working for its triumph in the West in
general and the United States in particular. The episode is but the latest
indication that the Democratic candidate hopes to win the White House by
relying, in part, on the Jihadist vote.
NBC reported Thursday that the Obama campaign's latest radical "Muslim
outreach coordinator," Mouha Husaini, met last month in one of Washington's
Northern Virginia suburbs - the heart of what has been dubbed the "Wahhabi
Corridor" - with her predecessor, Mazen Asbahi (who had to resign this
summer due to his own associations with Shariah). Even more problematic was
the presence at the Springfield event of two prominent Muslim Brotherhood
operatives: Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society (MAS) and Nihad Awad
of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
As I pointed out in a debate on Tuesday (for a transcript, go to
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1447/pub_detail.asp)
with a man associated with both organizations and arguably the Bush
administration's senior Muslim official, Suhail Khan, the Brotherhood is an
instrument the Islamists have been using to foster a Fifth Column in
America. Its stated purpose in this country is to "destroy Western
civilization from within."
According to NBC, even other attendees expressed concern that the Obama
campaign was reaching out to such "politically radioactive" individuals as
Messrs. Bray and Awad.
Unfortunately, this is hardly the only association of this type. Others
include the following:
-- A Federal Election Commission (FEC) employee has reportedly been warning
for months about evidence that the Obama campaign has received as much as
$200 million almost half of his total donations, in amounts less than $200.
That is below the threshold for donor information Mr. Obama has chose to
report to the FEC - unlike the Clinton and McCain campaigns which have
reported all donor information.
Of the $200 million, between $30 million and $100 million are from the
Mideast, Africa and other places Islamists are active. It is unclear
whether - as seems likely - these funds come not only from Wahhabis, Muslim
Brotherhood types and jihadists of other stripes but from non-U.S. citizens.
Such contributions would be not only worrying but illegal.
Although the FEC has studiously ignored the problem to date, the matter
finally appears to be the subject of a formal complaint by the Republican
National Committee. Unfortunately, even if the commission finally bestirs
itself to investigate the facts, it seems unlikely to render a finding
before the jihadists' and others' votes are counted.
-- Another question yet to be resolved is whether Mr. Obama is a natural
born citizen of the United States, a prerequisite pursuant to the U.S.
Constitution. There is evidence Mr. Obama was born in Kenya rather than, as
he claims, Hawaii. There is also a registration document for a school in
Indonesia where the would-be president studied for four years, on which he
was identified not only as a Muslim but as an Indonesian. If correct, the
latter could give rise to another potential problem with respect to his
eligibility to be president.
Curiously, Mr. Obama has, to date, failed to provide an authentic birth
certificate which could clear up the matter.
-- Then there is the Democratic candidate's get-out-the-vote effort. In
addition to the prospect that its "Arab-Americans for Obama" effort is
recruiting Muslim Brotherhood elements to enhance turnout, the Obama
campaign is trolling for voters in problematic places. Some are felons in
prison systems long used by Islamists as centers for recruiting converts to
their causes.
Some - thanks to a radical group known as ACORN with which Barack Obama has
had ties for many years and that has a serial problem with vote-registration
fraud - are homeless. Their attitude toward the Islamist agenda, or for that
matter any other aspect of national policy, can only be surmised.
-- Finally, there are the various well-known Islamists with whom Barack
Obama has long had ties and/or who are actively promoting his campaign.
These include: a former Black Panther convert to radical Islam who calls
himself Khalid al-Mansour; an aggressive promoter of Wahhabi influence
operations, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal; a virulently anti-Israel and
pro-suicide bomber Palestinian professor named Rashid Khalidi; and Nation of
Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who in a speech last February called Sen.
Obama "the messiah" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE).
Even Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi has got into the act, describing Mr.
Obama in a videotaped speech transcribed by MEMRI
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7xjcuCuCtI) as "a black citizen of Kenyan
African origins, a Muslim" (Philip Berg's contention) and declares ominously
that "people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa ... may even have
been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to Obama."
The next three weeks afford the American people - and the media, the courts
and the FEC - an opportunity to get to the bottom of Barack Obama's ties to
and affinity for jihadists who have their own reasons for relishing his
promise of "change" for this country. Unfortunately, the change his
Islamists supporters have in mind is for global theocratic rule under
Shariah, and the end of our constitutional, democratic government.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a
columnist for The Washington Times.
PC
"Andy Remingron" <andy...@powersellers.org> wrote in message
news:gd7lte$fpj$1...@aioe.org...
> Last week, Barack Obama's campaign
I was going to vote for McCain but apparently McCain and his supporters are
for spamming irrelevant posts to Usenet NGs. I have now decided to change
my vote for Obama. Thanks for helping me decide.
Jim Higgins
> nothing
Your post was an excellent reason to vote for Obama.
--
Civis Romanus Sum
Arizona Coin Collector
I was checking out the orgins of the message below. It came from
Roma (Rome), Italy.
At least he did not CROSS POST in Newsgroup.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"Andy Remingron" <andy...@powersellers.org> wrote in message
news:gd7lte$fpj$1...@aioe.org...
Michael Benveniste
> I was checking out the orgins of the message below. It came from
> Roma (Rome), Italy.
>
> http://www.aioe.org/
>
> At least he did not CROSS POST in Newsgroup.
aioe.org is an anonymous posting service used, alas, worldwide.
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification required)
Legalize Updoc.
gogu
news:6vOdnXu5IclAxmrV...@comcast.com...
If I was voting in the US, that exactly would be my reaction!
Amazing how stupid some people are!
Honus
Especially you, if an anonymous piece of unwanted spam has that kind of
influence on you. What are you people going to do when a similar piece of
posted crap slamming McCain finds its way in here? Switch your vote?
Chas Edwards
> I was going to vote for McCain but apparently McCain and his supporters are
> for spamming irrelevant posts to Usenet NGs. I have now decided to change
> my vote for Obama. Thanks for helping me decide.
The internet is filled with messages from BOTH sides. Interesting that
PC would
take offense at just one message. If PC knows that little about
politics he made
the right choice.
Chas. Edw.
PC
"Chas Edwards" <chas...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f74df059-51fa-4b70...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 16, 11:20 am, "PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote:
>
>> I was going to vote for McCain but apparently McCain and his supporters
>> are
>> for spamming irrelevant posts to Usenet NGs. I have now decided to
>> change
>> my vote for Obama. Thanks for helping me decide.
>
> The internet is filled with messages from BOTH sides.
I have yet to see a good smear of McCain. I don't deny they exist but the
messages over the last two weeks have been overwhelmingly in favor of
smearing Obama.
If you know that little about Usenet I am amazed you found it.
gogu
news:cMadnfe4it6rIWrV...@comcast.com...
> gogu wrote:
>> ? "PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> ?????? ??? ??????
>> news:6vOdnXu5IclAxmrV...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Andy Remingron" <andy...@powersellers.org> wrote in message
>>> news:gd7lte$fpj$1...@aioe.org...
>>>> Last week, Barack Obama's campaign
>>> I was going to vote for McCain but apparently McCain and his
>>> supporters are for spamming irrelevant posts to Usenet NGs. I have
>>> now decided to change my vote for Obama. Thanks for helping me
>>> decide.
>> If I was voting in the US, that exactly would be my reaction!
>> Amazing how stupid some people are!
> Especially you,
Name calling is not going to make your point stronger!
> if an anonymous piece of unwanted spam has that kind of influence on you.
> What are you people going to do when a similar piece of posted crap
> slamming McCain finds its way in here? Switch your vote?
You are right but you must admit that this is the first reaction of every
decent man in such kind of postings!
Gutter language is not helping.
Chas Edwards
> "Chas Edwards" <chas....@comcast.net> wrote in message
The newspapers and internet are full of attacks on both McCain and
Obama. Of course if you look for only one side you will see only that
side. Your bias is obvious and the pretense of being neutral is a
joke.
Chas. Edw.
Chas Edwards
Especially you, if an anonymous piece of unwanted spam has that kind
of
influence on you. What are you people going to do when a similar piece
of
posted crap slamming McCain finds its way in here? Switch your vote?
***********
The best posting to date in this thread. PC and Gogu already had their
minds made up and went through a charade of being influenced by a
single post. Says perhaps all that is necessary about their political
IQ.
Chas. Edw.
gogu
news:5e1310e3-3386-470d...@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
As I said, childish insults and lies will not make your arguments more
credible!
Because:
1) I am *not* a US citizen, so personally I don't care who will win the
elections!
2) I come from a quite wealthy family and -believe it or not- in my country
I -usually- vote with conservatives which is the closest you can get to your
Republicans! Of course I have voted for other parties, too, when
conservatives let me down. I consider I am not "owned" by any political
party so I can vote one time with party X and another time with party Y. Not
like some other folks "with a low political IQ" (citing...almost) who are
voting everytime for the same party, good or bad!
Don't you think it would be appropriate to ask sorry for your childish
insults and for being fast to judge people you don't know?...
Thank you!
mazorj
The original post told us all we need to know about the political IQ
of the poster. The fact that you are defending it doesn't say much
for yours, either.
Both sides' views and actions can be critiqued based on facts.
Trumping up silly scare tactics is not the way to garner support for
your candidate. Sadly, McCain's latest ads have been reduced to just
that, leveraging the worst of the Internet paranoia by boiling it down
to "you can't trust Obama". Even the voiced intonation of the charge
has been calibrated to sound just short of hysterical.
Chas Edwards
The original post told us all we need to know about the political IQ
of the poster. The fact that you are defending it doesn't say much
for yours, either.
Both sides' views and actions can be critiqued based on facts.
Trumping up silly scare tactics is not the way to garner support for
your candidate. Sadly, McCain's latest ads have been reduced to just
that, leveraging the worst of the Internet paranoia by boiling it
down
to "you can't trust Obama". Even the voiced intonation of the charge
has been calibrated to sound just short of hysterical.
************
If you could actually read you would know that I did not defend the
original poster but a later one. Both sides have hysterical ads and
your bias shows quite nicely by mentioning only one side.
Chas. Edw.
Chas Edwards
> As I said, childish insults and lies will not make your arguments more
> credible!
> Because:
> 1) I am *not* a US citizen, so personally I don't care who will win the
> elections!
> 2) I come from a quite wealthy family and -believe it or not- in my country
> I -usually- vote with conservatives which is the closest you can get to your
> Republicans! Of course I have voted for other parties, too, when
> conservatives let me down. I consider I am not "owned" by any political
> party so I can vote one time with party X and another time with party Y. Not
> like some other folks "with a low political IQ" (citing...almost) who are
> voting everytime for the same party, good or bad!
> Don't you think it would be appropriate to ask sorry for your childish
> insults and for being fast to judge people you don't know?...
> Thank you!
********
I have merely commented that both sides have irresponsible ads and
that those who favor Obama in these postings already had their minds
made up; acting as though one irrelevant post made up their minds does
not pass the laugh test, however.
Chas. Edw.
Honus
> Ο "Honus" <Ho...@invalid.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
> news:cMadnfe4it6rIWrV...@comcast.com...
>> gogu wrote:
>>> ? "PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> ?????? ??? ??????
>>> news:6vOdnXu5IclAxmrV...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Andy Remingron" <andy...@powersellers.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:gd7lte$fpj$1...@aioe.org...
>>>>> Last week, Barack Obama's campaign
>
>
>>>> I was going to vote for McCain but apparently McCain and his
>>>> supporters are for spamming irrelevant posts to Usenet NGs. I have
>>>> now decided to change my vote for Obama. Thanks for helping me
>>>> decide.
>
>
>>> If I was voting in the US, that exactly would be my reaction!
>>> Amazing how stupid some people are!
>
>
>> Especially you,
>
> Name calling is not going to make your point stronger!
And? The only difference between what you said and what I said was that I
was more specific. Take your own advice.
>> if an anonymous piece of unwanted spam has that kind of influence on
>> you. What are you people going to do when a similar piece of posted
>> crap slamming McCain finds its way in here? Switch your vote?
>
> You are right but you must admit that this is the first reaction of
> every decent man in such kind of postings!
No, I don't admit it. Neither do I concede it.
> Gutter language is not helping.
You must be objecting to the use of the word "crap". How's this...I'm not
trying to "help" you or anyone. So again, your point isn't much of one.
Honus
> ? "Chas Edwards" <chas...@comcast.net> ?????? ??? ??????
> news:5e1310e3-3386-470d...@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Honus Oct 16, 6:12 pm
>>
>> Especially you, if an anonymous piece of unwanted spam has that kind
>> of
>> influence on you. What are you people going to do when a similar
>> piece of
>> posted crap slamming McCain finds its way in here? Switch your vote?
>>
>> ***********
>
>
>> The best posting to date in this thread. PC and Gogu already had
>> their minds made up and went through a charade of being influenced
>> by a single post. Says perhaps all that is necessary about their
>> political IQ.
>>
>> Chas. Edw.
>
>
> As I said, childish insults and lies will not make your arguments more
> credible!
> Because:
> 1) I am *not* a US citizen, so personally I don't care who will win
> the elections!
How very provincial. You might want to reconsider. And I shouldn't have to
explain to you why.
mazorj
You are correct, you did not openly defend the original posting so I
should not have jumped to conclusions about you.
Just as you have no grounds to accuse me of bias in this thread.
PC
> On Oct 17, 9:57 am, "PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote:
>> "Chas Edwards" <chas....@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f74df059-51fa-4b70...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Oct 16, 11:20 am, "PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote:
>>
>> >> I was going to vote for McCain but apparently McCain and his
>> >> supporters
>> >> are
>> >> for spamming irrelevant posts to Usenet NGs. I have now decided to
>> >> change
>> >> my vote for Obama. Thanks for helping me decide.
>>
>> > The internet is filled with messages from BOTH sides.
>>
>> I have yet to see a good smear of McCain. I don't deny they exist but
>> the
>> messages over the last two weeks have been overwhelmingly in favor of
>> smearing Obama.
>>
>> If you know that little about Usenet I am amazed you found it.
>
> The newspapers and internet are full of attacks
Yet you can't cite one. Nice.
> on both McCain and
> Obama. Of course if you look for only one side you will see only that
> side.
I suppose that would be true of someone who only looks for one side. I,
however, am not looking for negative campaigning against anyone.
> Your bias is obvious
Because I responded to an usenet post that bashed Obama? Thanks for making
my point unless you have an example of a post made in this NG around the
same time bashing McCain that I ignored?
> and the pretense of being neutral is a
> joke.
>
I am no longer neutral. I think I made that quite clear in my first post.
If you are still confused, please ask a trusted adult to help you sort it
out.
> Chas. Edw.
>
>
>
PC
>
> I have merely commented that both sides have irresponsible ads and
> that those who favor Obama in these postings already had their minds
> made up;
Only in your mind. Your bias is pretty obvious to everyone else.
> acting as though one irrelevant post made up their minds does
> not pass the laugh test, however.
One? No sir. There have been numerous in this and the Packers NG over the
last two weeks. Not one has spread lies about McCain. All have spread lies
about Obama.
Your claims are laughably transparent.
PC
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:xq4Kk.1731$r_3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>
> Just as you have no grounds to accuse me of bias in this thread.
>
Bingo!
Chas Edwards
> "Chas Edwards" <chas....@comcast.net> wrote in message
Chas Edwards
**********
As is your bias. I have seen numerous examples of both sides flaying
the other. You, on the other, only see one side.
Chas. Edw.
som...@some.domain
PC
<som...@some.domain> wrote in message
news:yx7Kk.572758$J72.4...@fe05.news.easynews.com...
>>
>>Your claims are laughably transparent.
>>
> i can see my house from here!
I believe that you are referring to a misquote attributed to Sarah Palin,
not John McCain, and it had more to do with being able to see Russia from
her kitchen. I believe it was only Tina Fey that actually delivered that
quote.
In any event my claim was that all the Usenet posts I have read in the NGs I
frequent have been smears on Obama, not McCain. I have to amend that
statement. I do now recall a well-known conspiracy theory aficionado who
posted some nonsense about McCain accidentally killing a fellow pilot by
doing a "hot start" or something similar. The post was very quickly and
efficiently debunked as nonsense.
These numerous anti-Obama posts are nonsense as well but tend to appeal to a
base common denominator type of ugliness that coincidentally (or not) has
been the same type of ugliness displayed at recent McCain rallies. To
ignore the correlation between the recent tone at his rallies and the sudden
frequency of these Obama smears is to willfully ignore a very large elephant
in the room. IMO.
gogu
> On Oct 17, 11:00 am, "gogu"
>> As I said, childish insults and lies will not make your arguments more
>> credible!
>> Because:
>> 1) I am *not* a US citizen, so personally I don't care who will win the
>> elections!
>> 2) I come from a quite wealthy family and -believe it or not- in my
>> country
>> I -usually- vote with conservatives which is the closest you can get to
>> your
>> Republicans! Of course I have voted for other parties, too, when
>> conservatives let me down. I consider I am not "owned" by any political
>> party so I can vote one time with party X and another time with party Y.
>> Not
>> like some other folks "with a low political IQ" (citing...almost) who are
>> voting everytime for the same party, good or bad!
>> Don't you think it would be appropriate to ask sorry for your childish
>> insults and for being fast to judge people you don't know?...
>> Thank you!
> I have merely commented that both sides have irresponsible ads and
> that those who favor Obama in these postings already had their minds
> made up;
This is not true, you referred *personally* to me and PC and in an offensive
mode!
Please read:
-"PC and Gogu already had their
minds made up and went through a charade of being influenced by a
single post"!-
As I have proved, at least I had no need to make any "charade" because
simply the whole matter does not touch me!
I simply made a statement which is my right (I suppose it is still anyone's
right in the US, right?)....
You can agree or disagree with such a statement, what you have no right
(theoretically/ethically) to do is to attribute intention to my posting,
given you now nothing about me!
> acting as though one irrelevant post made up their minds does
> not pass the laugh test, however.
You may laugh as much as you want but you'd be surprised to know that many
people are changing/making their mind (and thus influence the voting result)
based on such minor things or impressions!
Ah, I forgot, they have a low political IQ;-)
gogu
Thus spake a "decent" person;-)
Fare well!
Plonk!
Chas Edwards
These numerous anti-Obama posts are nonsense as well but tend to
appeal to a
base common denominator type of ugliness that coincidentally (or not)
has
been the same type of ugliness displayed at recent McCain rallies.
To
ignore the correlation between the recent tone at his rallies and the
sudden
frequency of these Obama smears is to willfully ignore a very large
elephant
in the room. IMO.
*********
You must read different newsgroups than I do. Or don't read, more
likely. The only recent postings on Collector Universe, for example,
attacked McCain and his supporters and the thread was quickly taken
down by the moderator. Interestingly enough there have been no anti-
Obama postings but, if there are, I hope they are taken down just as
quickly.
As to the rallies I find that both have contingents equally nasty. The
recent very crude attacks on Palin at a major Obama rally, which Obama
refused to condemn, show this very nicely.
I thank you for the correlation. The anti-McCain remarks I have seen
posted on the internet are then, according to your reasoning, clearly
tied to the Obama rallies and by his direct orders. I would never have
guessed this until your post and in point of fact do not believe it.
Chas. Edw.
gogu
It looks that the only provincial here it's you.
Democrat or Republican the new tenant of the White House, the US foreign
policy changes a little, so I don't care who will be the next US president.
If you are referring to the fact that US president's actions influence the
international economy (and not only) this is true but I repeat that I
couldn't care less if good or bad times are to come, I am the same secure in
both cases.
-I don't care if I pay fuel 1,20 euros per liter or 2,20 or even 3,30.
-I don't care about the price falling of the houses, as I don't intend to
sell what I own; I am renting them and have a stable income. And in the US I
own just/only one apartment in Ridgefield Park N.J and again, I don't intend
to sell it.
-I don't care if the stock market is going down, because I have mainly bank
stocks and because I don't need to sell them. Sooner or later they will
return to their previous value(s).
-I don't care if the purchasing capability of the average Joe is diminishing
because I am not in the retail business, what my business "sells" is always
in demand even if with small fluctuations.
For all the above reasons, I don't care if the next US president will be a
Democrat or a Republican.
You may say I am selfish but I am only frank.
As for the rest, I repeat, feel well soon in my killfile.
mazorj
"PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote in message
news:AN-dnZj4HtnFgWTV...@comcast.com...
>
> <som...@some.domain> wrote in message
> news:yx7Kk.572758$J72.4...@fe05.news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>>Your claims are laughably transparent.
>>>
>> i can see my house from here!
Whether intended or not, there's a double entendre buried somewhere in
there.
> I believe that you are referring to a misquote attributed to Sarah
> Palin, not John McCain, and it had more to do with being able to see
> Russia from her kitchen. I believe it was only Tina Fey that
> actually delivered that quote.
>
> In any event my claim was that all the Usenet posts I have read in
> the NGs I frequent have been smears on Obama, not McCain. I have to
> amend that statement. I do now recall a well-known conspiracy
> theory aficionado who posted some nonsense about McCain accidentally
> killing a fellow pilot by doing a "hot start" or something similar.
> The post was very quickly and efficiently debunked as nonsense.
>
> These numerous anti-Obama posts are nonsense as well but tend to
> appeal to a base common denominator type of ugliness that
> coincidentally (or not) has been the same type of ugliness displayed
> at recent McCain rallies. To ignore the correlation between the
> recent tone at his rallies and the sudden frequency of these Obama
> smears is to willfully ignore a very large elephant in the room.
> IMO.
Speaking of double entendres, ahem. Elephants indeed.
I don't frequent political blogs, preferring to follow the debunking
through the non-partisan www.politifact.com fact-checking site.
However, like you, the vast majority of the dozens of inaccurate
screeds that I've seen were directed at Obama. He's a closet Muslim,
he and his wife hate whites and America, he wasn't born in the U.S.,
equating his acquaintance with people with subscribing to their
beliefs, on and on almost beyond belief. On the other side of the
ledger I can recall one making the rounds that was directed at
McCain's wife's drug addiction, which was overblown rather than
inaccurate, and then there was... um... ah...
Honus
English obviously isn't your native tongue, so I'll let that one slide.
> Democrat or Republican the new tenant of the White House, the US
> foreign policy changes a little, so I don't care who will be the next
> US president. If you are referring to the fact that US president's
> actions influence the international economy (and not only) this is
> true but I repeat that I couldn't care less if good or bad times are
> to come, I am the same secure in both cases.
> -I don't care if I pay fuel 1,20 euros per liter or 2,20 or even 3,30.
> -I don't care about the price falling of the houses, as I don't
> intend to sell what I own; I am renting them and have a stable
> income. And in the US I own just/only one apartment in Ridgefield
> Park N.J and again, I don't intend to sell it.
> -I don't care if the stock market is going down, because I have
> mainly bank stocks and because I don't need to sell them. Sooner or
> later they will return to their previous value(s).
> -I don't care if the purchasing capability of the average Joe is
> diminishing because I am not in the retail business, what my business
> "sells" is always in demand even if with small fluctuations.
> For all the above reasons, I don't care if the next US president will
> be a Democrat or a Republican.
> You may say I am selfish but I am only frank.
I'm very impressed. That's one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen.
> As for the rest, I repeat, feel well soon in my killfile.
Coward.
mazorj
> PC Oct 17, 7:14 pm
>
> These numerous anti-Obama posts are nonsense as well but tend to
> appeal to a
> base common denominator type of ugliness that coincidentally (or
> not) has
> been the same type of ugliness displayed at recent McCain rallies.
> To
> ignore the correlation between the recent tone at his rallies and
> the sudden
> frequency of these Obama smears is to willfully ignore a very large
> elephant in the room. IMO.
>
> *********
>
> You must read different newsgroups than I do. Or don't read, more
> likely. The only recent postings on Collector Universe, for example,
> attacked McCain and his supporters
Was it a difference in political opinion aimed at his policies and
views, or was it ad hominem and conspiracy theory like the anti-Obama
screed that started this thread?
> and the thread was quickly taken
> down by the moderator. Interestingly enough there have been no anti-
> Obama postings but, if there are, I hope they are taken down just as
> quickly.
So you don't get this junk in political e-mails from friends, family,
co-workers and spammers? That's where I get most of it, not in
newsgroups.
> As to the rallies I find that both have contingents equally nasty.
> The
> recent very crude attacks on Palin at a major Obama rally, which
> Obama
> refused to condemn, show this very nicely.
Got a cite to fully document your characterization? I'd like to
investigate that, along with any examples you have of anti-McCain
screeds on the order of what's been going around about Obama. Other
than an overblown item about his wife's drug addiction, I seem to have
missed those. (And by anti-McCain screeds I don't mean
characterizations of his political views, I mean the mean-spirited and
blatantly misleading ad hominem that started this thread.)
> I thank you for the correlation. The anti-McCain remarks I have seen
> posted on the internet are then, according to your reasoning,
> clearly
> tied to the Obama rallies and by his direct orders. I would never
> have
> guessed this until your post and in point of fact do not believe it.
For someone who (accurately) accused me of jumping to a conclusion
about the content of your posts, you have a remarkable facility for
reading things into others' posts that aren't there, like mine and
PC's.
Some may make the mistake of assuming that the Obama slurs are being
perpetrated "with the knowledge of, and at the orders of" McCain; but
anyone familiar with how these things work knows that this is both
unlikely and unnecessary for either candidate. No informed observer
seriously believes that all the numerous anti-Obama ad hominem screeds
running around the Internet are the work of McCain campaign
operatives. Likewise for anti-McCain ad hominem screeds (if they
exist - I have yet to see one) being the work of Obama campaign
operatives. If Obama operatives are in fact doing that, they've done
a piss-poor job judging from the number of anti-McCain ad hominem
screeds I've seen compared to the voluminous anti-Obama ad hominem.
BTW, your accusation by way of bogus forced logic reveals that you are
not quite the impartial observer you would have others believe.
Neither am I - no one can be 100% impartial in politics - but I'm not
the one trying to give the impression that both camps are equally
guilty here. I give credit to McCain for the times that he has tried
to dampen the Obama ad hominem, but then, he has a lot more to put
dampers on than Obama.
Chas Edwards
These numerous anti-Obama posts are nonsense as well but tend to
appeal to a
base common denominator type of ugliness that coincidentally (or not)
has
been the same type of ugliness displayed at recent McCain rallies.
To
ignore the correlation between the recent tone at his rallies and the
sudden
frequency of these Obama smears is to willfully ignore a very large
elephant
in the room. IMO.
*************
[My post in response to PC:]
I thank you for the correlation. The anti-McCain remarks I have seen
posted on the internet are then, according to your reasoning, clearly
tied to the Obama rallies and by his direct orders. I would never
have
guessed this until your post and in point of fact do not believe it.
*****************
[Post by mazorj:]
For someone who (accurately) accused me of jumping to a conclusion
about the content of your posts, you have a remarkable facility for
reading things into others' posts that aren't there, like mine and
PC's.
*****************
My analysis of the PC posting stands as written because the meaning of
the original comment is very plain. You ought to read the material
more carefully. I see no point in further discussion with someone who
distorts what has been said and then attacks on that basis.
And, just for the record, if I were moderator of this group the OP
would have been dropped at once along with all other political remarks
concerning the 2008 election. If the posting was historical in nature
and actually reflected a political slant to the coinage, then it would
perhaps be of value.
Chas. Edw.
mazorj
1. What did I distort and then attack?
2. You just distorted PC's statement again. He did not say that the
Obama screeds were the result of McCain campaign operatives or his
direct orders. Therefore you cannot use that as the basis for making
a logical jump in the opposite direction and say that anti-McCain
remarks are "according to (PC's) reasoning, clearly tied to the Obama
rallies and by his direct orders." If your premise (a false
characterization of PC's statement) is false, your logical conclusion
fails, as it did for you here.
3. So you're running away from a request for examples of anti-McCain
ad hominem screeds after you've implied that they exist in abundance?
If so then good riddance. Put up some examples of anti-McCain ad
hominem screeds or shut up.
> And, just for the record, if I were moderator of this group the OP
> would have been dropped at once along with all other political
> remarks
> concerning the 2008 election. If the posting was historical in
> nature
> and actually reflected a political slant to the coinage, then it
> would
> perhaps be of value.
If you truly believed that, you wouldn't have responded at all to such
an "off topic" topic.
Your hypocrisy is showing through in just about every post now.
Frank Provasek
>
> These numerous anti-Obamaposts are nonsense as well but tend to appeal to a
> base common denominator type of ugliness that coincidentally (or not) has
> been the same type of ugliness displayed at recent McCain rallies. To
> ignore the correlation between the recent tone at his rallies and the sudden
> frequency of these Obamasmears is to willfully ignore a very large elephant
> in the room. IMO.
A disturbing example of the "dittoheads" that get their news from Fox,
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity...