most DEMS that support him have a college education.

4/23/2008 8:55:07 PM

i'm pretty sure most people in general that support him have a college education, regardless of political party

4/23/2008 9:03:30 PM

Quote :

"I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. "

Quote :

"Factcheck.org today takes a look at Obama's claim to not take money from oil companies and concludes that the statement "misleading" since according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics Obama has taken more than $213,000 from individuals (and their spouses) who work for companies in the oil and gas industry -- not to mention that two of Obama's top fundraisers are top executives at oil companies" It is literally true that Obama doesn't take money from oil companies. No federal candidate does -- corporations have been banned from direct contributions since 1907. The Obama campaign points out that the senator doesn't take money from PACs or from lobbyists. Factcheck.org calls that a "distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually." "

In true Clintonian fashion, Obama twists the truth in order to mislead. Same old same old from another lawyer-politician.

Why doesn't someone in the press ask Obama straight out if he has taken any money from an oil company employee or executive?

4/23/2008 10:01:41 PM

cause they all do

4/23/2008 11:03:17 PM

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:256724

indy endorses obama

4/24/2008 12:09:49 AM

^^^ Barack Obama clearly is different than the other candidates when it comes to financing. It's blatantly false to imply otherwise. Unlike both Hillary and McCain the guy wasn't even a millionaire until after he started running for president, and got his book out, and even still, he's not a multimillionaire (as far as i've heard).
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008

CLICK TO EMBIGGEN

40% of his donations are from people giving $200 or less, which is your small time donors (people like us), vs on 23 and 24 for Hillary and McCain. Only 6% of his donors gave $4300 or more, vs 24 and 11% for hillary and McCain.

The majority (60-70%)of Hillary's and McCain's PAC donations come from business donors (a sickeningly large amount actually), vs Obama and McCain who both have a majority of donations coming from single issue PACs. Obama has only 9% of PAC donations from those types of sources, with the rest being single-issue/ideological groups (people who support gun control or the environment for example).

Obama also has the highest quality disclosure, according to that site (whatever that means).

So in terms of who's paying the bills, we're MUCH, MUCH safer to NOT get a corporate lap dog with Obama, compared to either Hillary or McCain.


[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 12:23 AM. Reason : ]

4/24/2008 12:21:06 AM

4/24/2008 1:06:30 AM

personally i support obama because of his speeches - i loved his comments during his recent speech here in raleigh

4/24/2008 3:36:30 AM

Quote :

"The majority (60-70%)of Hillary's and McCain's PAC donations come from business donors (a sickeningly large amount actually), vs Obama and McCain who both have a majority of donations coming from single issue PACs. Obama has only 9% of PAC donations from those types of sources, with the rest being single-issue/ideological groups (people who support gun control or the environment for example)."

Aside from your first sentence not making any sense, this is an utterly meaningless statistic considering that PAC's are capped at $5000 in individual contributions. PAC contributions make up less than 1% of McCain's, Hillary's and Obama's war chests, so the breakdown of those PACs is irrelevant.

You probably knew that, but ignored it because it didn't fit your argument.

Quote :

"So in terms of who's paying the bills, we're MUCH, MUCH safer to NOT get a corporate lap dog with Obama, compared to either Hillary or McCain."

Yeah, that was never a concern. I'm more worried that we'll get a union lap dog.


[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 4:51 AM. Reason : 2]

4/24/2008 4:45:02 AM

Seems Obama just cannot shake his terrorist friends...

Quote :

"Two years ago, Hatem El-Hady was the chairman of the Toledo, Ohio-based Islamic charity, Kindhearts, which was closed by the US government in February 2006 for terrorist fundraising and all its assets frozen. Today, El-Hady has redirected his fundraising efforts for his newest cause - Barack Obama for President. El-Hady has his own dedicated page on Barack Obama's official website, chronicling his fundraising on behalf of the Democratic Party presidential candidate (his Obama profile established on February 19, 2008 - two years to the day after Kindhearts was raided by the feds). Not only that, but he has none other than Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, listed as one of his friends (one of her 224 listed friends). But his leadership of Kindhearts is not the only thing that has brought him scrutiny by federal law enforcement officials. Last summer, El-Hady was questioned by the FBI concerning his knowledge of possible conspirators in a UK-based terror plot. "

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6203178D-C782-42E2-8D56-765A3D7EDCD7

4/24/2008 10:12:54 AM

what a stretch, lol. Why don't we comb over the six degrees of seperation of everyone now? See what bullshit we can bring up as cannon fodder.

pathetic.

4/24/2008 10:45:01 AM

i'm just curious: does anyone actually THINK obama is a terrorist? or supports terrorism?

4/24/2008 10:48:20 AM

its ok to post pictures of rumsfeld shaking hands with saddam and other pictures like that

but how dare you even mention questionable people obama has associated with...what nerve!

4/24/2008 11:23:19 AM

and it's okay to both criticize people for dodging questions, and then blatantly dodge them yourself

4/24/2008 2:54:55 PM

what question am i dodging?

4/24/2008 2:57:16 PM

the question above your post

4/24/2008 3:08:13 PM

so, in order to answer a completely ludicrous question like "is Obama a terrorist", which by its wording appears to be directed at "anyone", I have to explicitly say "No, I don't think Obama is a terrorist" or you troll me about ducking questions? saritroll

no idea why I'm supposed to think that question is directed at me anyway, since I hadn't even posted on that page of the thread.....

4/24/2008 3:10:32 PM

it wasn't directed at you, but it seemed you responded to my post with a complete strawman instead of answering my question

4/24/2008 3:15:26 PM

well i wasnt responding to your asinine rhetorical question

4/24/2008 3:19:43 PM

but then what are these implications your trying to make about associations?

if they aren't about what you think obama actually believes or will act upon, what's the point?

4/24/2008 3:24:49 PM

its simply pointing out yet another double standard

it seems most of the obama supporters who are so quick to separate obama from wright, are many of the same people who loved to point out any links or associations between the current administration and other questionable people (ie rumsfeld and hussein)...typical partisan hypocrisy

4/24/2008 3:31:33 PM

I just heard an Ad about obama voting against the death penality for gang members in chicago who commit gang related murders.

His reason, according to the writer, was bc it would target mostly blacks, since most gangs in chicago are made up of blacks. If they can produce a tape or quote of him saying that, this could do some damage.

4/24/2008 4:18:40 PM

He wouldn't be the only lawmaker to give that same reasoning for the argument that the death penalty is racist. This, however, is a subject I don't want to get into with you.

4/24/2008 4:22:47 PM

its not about race. If you are for the dealth penalty the race doesnt matter who did the act. imo If they can prove he said that, I do think it will hurt him. Esp in the general.

Him not judging someone by thier actions, but on their color goes against his "message" and is bullshit. imo

4/24/2008 4:37:25 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0IcnYWGSSE&eurl=http://papundits.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/urban-terrorism-chicago-2001-starring-barack-hussein-obama/


Here is the AD. For those who care to watch.

[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/24/2008 4:40:41 PM

Shit, it's not like he voted to not throw them in prison and keep them there for life.

He just voted against murdering more people

Jesus Christ

4/24/2008 4:44:12 PM

Honestly... I like him cause he doesn't seem like a puppet...

I used to like McCain but recently it seems the GOP has got their strings attached

4/24/2008 4:45:42 PM

I know terp. The problem is he said he: "supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

In my opinion, the gang related murders described in the AD fit into his criteria.

If he is saying he supports the death penalty for some, but not for others simply bc of their race. He is going to have issues getting people to swallow that pill.

4/24/2008 4:49:23 PM

4/24/2008 5:15:18 PM

first off: i don't support the death penalty at all. one of the main reasons i don't is that i don't think our gov't should kill people. but a supplementary reason is that it disproportionately is used against minorities and the poor.

4/24/2008 5:19:33 PM

I loled when they brought in 9/11

4/24/2008 6:01:12 PM

I can see how the ad might hurt Obama, but I ussually distrust ads that try to connect a broad issue with a single vote a legislator made.

I mean, there might have been other reasons for Obama to vote against the bill than because he is weak appeaser of criminals. But I really don't have the time to go figure it out and probably not the education (i am not a lawyer and really had no clue that legislator had any say in what groups got the death penalty or not).

It actually reminds me a little bit of what the Republicans did to Kerry in 2004 (saying he "voted for over 100 tax increases) and what Democrats are trying to do to McCain now ("omg! he totally voted against a bill that banned warning boarding, a previous act actually already banned, and a shit load of interigating techniques you don't need to worry about. He's a flip-flopper that support torture!" )

4/24/2008 6:20:37 PM

Quote :

"His reason, according to the writer, was bc it would target mostly blacks, since most gangs in chicago are made up of blacks"

Would he oppose the war on terror since it "targets" primarily muslims?

Quote :

"He just voted against murdering more people"

What deterrent would there be if a gang member knew that killing someone at worst could land him in prison with more of his gang-pals?

Gangs understand force and strength of will. We need to show them what a gang war really looks like. Get the National Guard out of Iraq and send our them into gang areas. A year or two of all out war on them might drop gang recruiting numbers. We need a surge on gangs.

4/24/2008 7:44:09 PM

now that's just stupid

4/24/2008 9:19:02 PM

What's stupid about wanting to curb gang violence? It's definitely a problem and it's getting worse in our area with the Mexican gangs coming around to do their thing.

I'd love for gangs to get the domestic terrorist label so they can be dealt with quickly and harshly. New recruits should be second guessing themselves when it comes to joining up.

I know it sounds rather aggressive, but I'd rather have violence and drug issues fixed at home first before he go somewhere else to deal with someone else's problems.

4/24/2008 10:52:16 PM

Quote :

"I'd love for gangs to get the domestic terrorist label so they can be dealt with quickly and harshly."

ugh. so now anyone with a vaguely muslim OR hispanic name is going to be put on a list.

as long as you're not on the list, right?

4/24/2008 11:01:56 PM

That's not even my point. I'm talking gang activity like MS-13, Crips, Bloods, whatever. You can even add in the heavyweights like the Mafia and Yakuza.

I understand (especially in the south) that there are certain racial sects that might be targeted if someone like this was allowed. I think any crackdown should be approved by national governments so local and state authorities don't let their bias get the best of them.

[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 11:07 PM. Reason : .]

4/24/2008 11:06:42 PM

Quote :

"so now anyone with a vaguely muslim OR hispanic name is going to be put on a list."

im trying to see how you reached this conclusion but i cant

4/24/2008 11:07:30 PM

so effectively, people in this thread are arguing that any minority group should be able to kill, steal, and drug deal without consequence....if the police stop them, they are racist....if lawmakers try to pass new laws, they are targeting minorities.

It has nothing to do with the protection of citizens...upholding the law...equal justice for all.....trying to stop this behavior is racist.

4/24/2008 11:31:05 PM

Quote :

"This campaign has such a hair trigger on anything racial. It is almost impossible for anybody to say anything"

4/24/2008 11:32:17 PM

going by the logic presented in this tread....speeding should be outlawed because the majority of car owners are white. Insider trading should be legal because if it were illegal, whites would be the primary target....

furthermore, every law in the nation should be outlawed because they target whites.......

The idea of not enforcing or not passing laws because it targets a race or gender group is absolutely absurd, not practical, and does nothing to make our country a better, safer place to live.

4/24/2008 11:37:04 PM

Obama is a radical liberal hack. He is an elitist, as his San Francisco comments prove. He is also an elitist because he feels he does not have to answer valid questions about reverend wright and bill ayers. he associates with radicals, but when he is called out his response is weak or non existent as to why he associates with them and if he shares their views (which its obvious he does). His wife is also a radical liberal hack. I dont want to see him anywhere near the white house.

4/25/2008 2:05:49 AM

Ha....hahaha.....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha

breath

hhaahahahahahaahahahaahahahahahahahahHahahaHAhAhahahahaAHAHAh

I knew they couldnt be that retarded

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020368.php

Quote :

"April 24, 2008 Change you can forget about, Part Two Barack Obama has campaigned on the promise of "ending the war" in Iraq by withdrawing troops within 16 months. But Michael Crowley of The New Republic, after interviewing senior advisers to the Obama campaign as well as assorted foreign policy experts, has concluded that this pledge is close to a pipe dream. According to Crowley, what Obama "is offering is a basic vision of withdrawal with muddy particulars, one his advisers are still formulating and one that, if he is elected, is destined to meet an even muddier reality on the ground." This conclusion is consistent with a statement made by Samatha (Soft) Power, a close adviser to Obama whose big mouth and corresponding ego caused her ouster (and least for public purposes) from the campaign. Power said that Obama's withdrawal plan amounts to a "best- case scenario" subject to substantial revision when he takes office. In addition, Crowley notes, the New York Sun has reported that the leader of the Obama campaign's working group on Iraq has produced a paper proposing to leave 60,000-80,000 American troops in Iraq through 2010. Once again, perhaps, the "change" Obama has been peddling came out second-best in its encounter with reality. "

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 9:11 AM. Reason : asd]

4/25/2008 9:09:42 AM

Quote :

"Obama is a radical liberal hack. He is an elitist, as his San Francisco comments prove. He is also an elitist because he feels he does not have to answer valid questions about reverend wright and bill ayers. he associates with radicals, but when he is called out his response is weak or non existent as to why he associates with them and if he shares their views (which its obvious he does). His wife is also a radical liberal hack. I dont want to see him anywhere near the white house."

blah blah blah george bush blah blah blah karl rove blah swiftboating and smear jobs blah

4/25/2008 9:18:27 AM

well, the current war on terror stops people with vaguely muslim names, don't you think a national effort to root out gangs and treat them as domestic terrorists would do the same thing?

i mean as far as i know, the fbi already cares a fair amount about gangs (or at least did more before the current "war on terror"). local police care about gangs. what is this national effort going to look like?

4/25/2008 11:24:26 AM

i gotta agree with reverund wrights newest interview:

"obamas just another politician"


just another left wing politician that nobody knows anything about b/c he's only got a couple years experience. their all the same. just politicians. he just happens to have a friendly personality and a little charisma... blah

4/25/2008 1:34:50 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=512067

4/25/2008 1:40:41 PM

Quote :

"he just happens to have a friendly personality and a little charisma."

that he does, but he appeals to me because he sounds a lot like Bill.

he doesn't give lockstep robotic liberal answers. he seems like the kind of person that will think things through and keep smart people around him.

most importantly, i think he has the ability (as does McCain) to seperate ideas from agenda. it will be a welcome change from what we've had to deal with this decade.

4/25/2008 1:49:52 PM

Quote :

" PAC contributions make up less than 1% of McCain's, Hillary's and Obama's war chests, so the breakdown of those PACs is irrelevant. You probably knew that, but ignored it because it didn't fit your argument. "

I agree that it's mostly irrelevant.

But from EarthDogg's post, you'd think those donations were running the campaigns. I just don't want people like EarthDogg misleading anyone.

4/26/2008 12:05:53 AM

Quote :

"he appeals to me because he sounds a lot like Bill."

you know its possible you could actually get Bill back in the White House

4/26/2008 12:09:58 AM