More Obama scaremongering and smearing

[Chris]

I did a write up in a response to one of those awful email forwards. Maybe you guys can also pick apart the BS email. I will repost the email here but will only provide a link (http://chris1051.blogspot.com/2008/03/barack-obama-smear-campaign.html) to my write up as that may push the limits of a post length.
Looks like a bunch of crap filled with falsehoods geared towards the Neocons. (like "Most Americans" LOL)

Here is the original Forward as it was sent:

Subject: The Obama Tidal Wave

We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare
magnitude. His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers
have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of "Change" or that he
says he will be a Uniterian. The power of speech from a charismatic person
truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma and both
his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions. On the
extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions and the
results were catastrophic. Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy
Graham, but for many Americans out there feeling just like a surfer who
might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, the real story is
what happens when it hits shore.
Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:

* He voted against banning partial " birth abortion.
* He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
* Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.
* In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.
* Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
* Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.
* His religious convictions are very murky.
* He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il andMahmoud Ahmadinejad.
* Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.
* Opposed the Patriot Act.
* First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.
* Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.
* Supports universal health-care.
* Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
* Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
* Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
* Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
* Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
* Wants to make the minimum wage a "living wage".
* Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.
* Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
* Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.
* He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax
* He voted No on repealing the "Death" Tax
* He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
* Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
* He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.


If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think
that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place,
then you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this Email. If you
are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly
not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or
better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very
foundations of this great Country. We have limited time to save America or
the Supreme Court as we know it. Inaction is action.

If you agree this is important, pass it on. The mainstream media will not
do it for you!

[Tsky]

I have seen that before, I have never bothered to read it, not even today. It will get worse. HRC is going out of her way to remind America that they are about to put a black President in office, she's so opposed to it she'd rather see McCain in the White House.

It's only going to get better...

[4Reaganomics]

Funny things is, I can't find a single thing in that e-mail that I can refute. I'm not positive on all of it, but can someone show me a part that is not true and refute that claim with a source or link?

I would greatly appreciate it.

[Tsky]

Funny things is, I can't find a single thing in that e-mail that I can refute. I'm not positive on all of it, but can someone show me a part that is not true and refute that claim with a source or link?

I would greatly appreciate it.


Apparently you didn't click on the link Chris provided where he refuted nearly all of it. And I'm sure you haven't taken the time to read up on everything Obama has ever done in his career to give you reason not to doubt what you read. So just say you'd prefer to read ignorance and accept it as fact as opposed to being informed. We understand.

[4Reaganomics]

That link is Hocus Pocus. Obama doesn't want to increase Capital gains tax because he didn't vote on it, riiiight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19obama.html

Read it all.

There you go, the source on liberal news has said he want to increase that capital gains tax

How could our promising poster have missed that?

Do you want me to post more discrepancies in his comments, or is one sufficient for you to realize that his link of proof is a blog and the responses can't be taken factually?

[AlanC]

Apparently you didn't click on the link Chris provided where he refuted nearly all of it. And I'm sure you haven't taken the time to read up on everything Obama has ever done in his career to give you reason not to doubt what you read. So just say you'd prefer to read ignorance and accept it as fact as opposed to being informed. We understand.

Well he ranted about some of it, he rationalized some of it, but I don't see where he refuted anything.

The narrative aside, the rest is pretty factual. It is going to depend on just where your sympathies lay as to whether you see them as being a negative or a positive.

Though I must admit, I have no idea what this one means.

* Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.

[4Reaganomics]

The link is absolute garbage AC.

Opposed the patriot act is not true because he didn't vote on it.

I guess this thing called expressing you opinions and using rhetoric doesn't stand for anything. I guess when Obama says he is against it and was against it that it doesn't mean he "opposed it", because he did not vote on it.

[AlanC]

I agree it is only his opinion and not one that is supported. As I said, he didn't really refute anything.

[Tsky]

So now we are left with the fact that those of you who agree with the memo should start supporting it with facts. There are no links provided in the memo. Please give the reason you believe, based upon just reading an obviously biased document, that it must be true.

Let the games begin.[hr]
That link is Hocus Pocus. Obama doesn't want to increase Capital gains tax because he didn't vote on it, riiiight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19obama.html

Read it all.

There you go, the source on liberal news has said he want to increase that capital gains tax

How could our promising poster have missed that?

Do you want me to post more discrepancies in his comments, or is one sufficient for you to realize that his link of proof is a blog and the responses can't be taken factually?


I'd much prefer you post links to prove that the memo in its entirety is factual. That makes a lot more sense. You see, before you did your little research you couldn't seem to find any discrepancies in what you read. I've already found 4 lies and I haven't read the entire memo. So again, if you want to take it as fact you should have sound reasons to do so.

[AlanC]

Its not my email and I have no interest in attempting to "defend" it. It states some things that are positions Obama has taken or offered in the course of the campaign.

If it is your claim that he has not really taken those positions, or that those positions somehow offend you, then I guess you are the one that needs to be looking into the veracity of them to satisfy your own interests.

None of them have the impact that they would change my opinion of Obama one way or the other. So why would I want to spend time attempting to justify them to someone who probably agrees with most of them anyway.

This is one game you can play by yourself if you have a mind to.

[Tsky]

Its not my email and I have no interest in attempting to "defend" it. It states some things that are positions Obama has taken or offered in the course of the campaign.

If it is your claim that he has not really taken those positions, or that those positions somehow offend you, then I guess you are the one that needs to be looking into the veracity of them to satisfy your own interests.

None of them have the impact that they would change my opinion of Obama one way or the other. So why would I want to spend time attempting to justify them to someone who probably agrees with most of them anyway.

This is one game you can play by yourself if you have a mind to.



I don't recall asking you to defend it; as a matter of fact I don't recall responding to your post period. That being said if you are intellectually biased enough to take a scathing one-sided memo at face value without attempting to decide if it is factual then that says a lot about your ability to be rational, honest and fair. It is one thing to look at it and decide it won't change your opinion one way or the other and an entirely other thing to decide it must be true if no one can prove it's false. You said, now that I've actually read your previous post because I hadn't bothered to so before, 'it looks pretty factual.' Again, that would mean that you have taken the time to familarize yourself with each of the issues discussed in that memo and I doubt that you have. Several of them are outright lies so it's fine with me if you can cherrypick a biased memo and determine which facts you are ok with. Not all of us have or even want the ability to do the same.

[4Reaganomics]

So now we are left with the fact that those of you who agree with the memo should start supporting it with facts. There are no links provided in the memo. Please give the reason you believe, based upon just reading an obviously biased document, that it must be true.

Let the games begin.[hr]
That link is Hocus Pocus. Obama doesn't want to increase Capital gains tax because he didn't vote on it, riiiight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19obama.html

Read it all.

There you go, the source on liberal news has said he want to increase that capital gains tax

How could our promising poster have missed that?

Do you want me to post more discrepancies in his comments, or is one sufficient for you to realize that his link of proof is a blog and the responses can't be taken factually?


I'd much prefer you post links to prove that the memo in its entirety is factual. That makes a lot more sense. You see, before you did your little research you couldn't seem to find any discrepancies in what you read. I've already found 4 lies and I haven't read the entire memo. So again, if you want to take it as fact you should have sound reasons to do so.




I respectfully asked for anything that was known to be untrue to be verified with factual links, and there truth could be debated upon.

I said I was unsure of certain things. I do not know Obama's entire voting record and his "present" vote often confuses me.

I was unaware that someone had to be vote on something to support it or denouce it. I personally thought that rhetoric of support or against was good enough to meet the criteria for understanding one's beliefs. The link shown to me was not adequate to refute a good amount of the items in the e-mail.

There are a few things in the e-mail I can see that are not entire truths. I can also say that there are things in Brian's blog that are blatantly false.

My point, a lot of the points made in the e-mail are true and are very scary to this nations future if Obama were to be president. There are a few inconsistencies in the e-mail that can be noted, but I can put together a list of "The Real Barack Obama"

Do you want me to really outline this man's history, proven beliefs, associations, voting record (have to love the present vote), etc.?[hr]

Its not my email and I have no interest in attempting to "defend" it. It states some things that are positions Obama has taken or offered in the course of the campaign.

If it is your claim that he has not really taken those positions, or that those positions somehow offend you, then I guess you are the one that needs to be looking into the veracity of them to satisfy your own interests.

None of them have the impact that they would change my opinion of Obama one way or the other. So why would I want to spend time attempting to justify them to someone who probably agrees with most of them anyway.

This is one game you can play by yourself if you have a mind to.



I don't recall asking you to defend it; as a matter of fact I don't recall responding to your post period. That being said if you are intellectually biased enough to take a scathing one-sided memo at face value without attempting to decide if it is factual then that says a lot about your ability to be rational, honest and fair. It is one thing to look at it and decide it won't change your opinion one way or the other and an entirely other thing to decide it must be true if no one can prove it's false. You said, now that I've actually read your previous post because I hadn't bothered to so before, 'it looks pretty factual.' Again, that would mean that you have taken the time to familarize yourself with each of the issues discussed in that memo and I doubt that you have. Several of them are outright lies so it's fine with me if you can cherrypick a biased memo and determine which facts you are ok with. Not all of us have or even want the ability to do the same.


Didn't you offer Brian's "blog" as truthful support when a good deal of it is certainly not true?

[Tsky]

So now we are left with the fact that those of you who agree with the memo should start supporting it with facts. There are no links provided in the memo. Please give the reason you believe, based upon just reading an obviously biased document, that it must be true.

Let the games begin.[hr]
That link is Hocus Pocus. Obama doesn't want to increase Capital gains tax because he didn't vote on it, riiiight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19obama.html

Read it all.

There you go, the source on liberal news has said he want to increase that capital gains tax

How could our promising poster have missed that?

Do you want me to post more discrepancies in his comments, or is one sufficient for you to realize that his link of proof is a blog and the responses can't be taken factually?


I'd much prefer you post links to prove that the memo in its entirety is factual. That makes a lot more sense. You see, before you did your little research you couldn't seem to find any discrepancies in what you read. I've already found 4 lies and I haven't read the entire memo. So again, if you want to take it as fact you should have sound reasons to do so.




I respectfully asked for anything that was known to be untrue to be verified with factual links, and there truth could be debated upon.

I said I was unsure of certain things. I do not know Obama's entire voting record and his "present" vote often confuses me.

I was unaware that someone had to be vote on something to support it or denouce it. I personally thought that rhetoric of support or against was good enough to meet the criteria for understanding one's beliefs. The link shown to me was not adequate to refute a good amount of the items in the e-mail.

There are a few things in the e-mail I can see that are not entire truths. I can also say that there are things in Brian's blog that are blatantly false.

My point, a lot of the points made in the e-mail are true and are very scary to this nations future if Obama were to be president. There are a few inconsistencies in the e-mail that can be noted, but I can put together a list of "The Real Barack Obama"

Do you want me to really outline this man's history, proven beliefs, associations, voting record (have to love the present vote), etc.?


Sure, no candidate is perfect. While you comprise your list, tell me if you are voting for John McCain so I can start compiling the same list. Then we can put them together and see which politicians shit stinks the most. Do you care to start this party today?

[4Reaganomics]

Do you want me to declare simply the facts, the facts and then analysis or what? Should I offer insight as to why he did certain things?

You're McCain list will be a joke compared to someone friendly with and supported by terrorists and bigots, but its your call.

[Tsky]

So now we are left with the fact that those of you who agree with the memo should start supporting it with facts. There are no links provided in the memo. Please give the reason you believe, based upon just reading an obviously biased document, that it must be true.

Let the games begin.[hr]
That link is Hocus Pocus. Obama doesn't want to increase Capital gains tax because he didn't vote on it, riiiight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19obama.html

Read it all.

There you go, the source on liberal news has said he want to increase that capital gains tax

How could our promising poster have missed that?

Do you want me to post more discrepancies in his comments, or is one sufficient for you to realize that his link of proof is a blog and the responses can't be taken factually?


I'd much prefer you post links to prove that the memo in its entirety is factual. That makes a lot more sense. You see, before you did your little research you couldn't seem to find any discrepancies in what you read. I've already found 4 lies and I haven't read the entire memo. So again, if you want to take it as fact you should have sound reasons to do so.




I respectfully asked for anything that was known to be untrue to be verified with factual links, and there truth could be debated upon.

I said I was unsure of certain things. I do not know Obama's entire voting record and his "present" vote often confuses me.

I was unaware that someone had to be vote on something to support it or denouce it. I personally thought that rhetoric of support or against was good enough to meet the criteria for understanding one's beliefs. The link shown to me was not adequate to refute a good amount of the items in the e-mail.

There are a few things in the e-mail I can see that are not entire truths. I can also say that there are things in Brian's blog that are blatantly false.

My point, a lot of the points made in the e-mail are true and are very scary to this nations future if Obama were to be president. There are a few inconsistencies in the e-mail that can be noted, but I can put together a list of "The Real Barack Obama"

Do you want me to really outline this man's history, proven beliefs, associations, voting record (have to love the present vote), etc.?[hr]

Its not my email and I have no interest in attempting to "defend" it. It states some things that are positions Obama has taken or offered in the course of the campaign.

If it is your claim that he has not really taken those positions, or that those positions somehow offend you, then I guess you are the one that needs to be looking into the veracity of them to satisfy your own interests.

None of them have the impact that they would change my opinion of Obama one way or the other. So why would I want to spend time attempting to justify them to someone who probably agrees with most of them anyway.

This is one game you can play by yourself if you have a mind to.



I don't recall asking you to defend it; as a matter of fact I don't recall responding to your post period. That being said if you are intellectually biased enough to take a scathing one-sided memo at face value without attempting to decide if it is factual then that says a lot about your ability to be rational, honest and fair. It is one thing to look at it and decide it won't change your opinion one way or the other and an entirely other thing to decide it must be true if no one can prove it's false. You said, now that I've actually read your previous post because I hadn't bothered to so before, 'it looks pretty factual.' Again, that would mean that you have taken the time to familarize yourself with each of the issues discussed in that memo and I doubt that you have. Several of them are outright lies so it's fine with me if you can cherrypick a biased memo and determine which facts you are ok with. Not all of us have or even want the ability to do the same.


Didn't you offer Brian's "blog" as truthful support when a good deal of it is certainly not true?



No, you said you can't find any of it that wasn't true. A place to start was with Chris's comments. Later on you apparently decided to do some 'real research' and even you can see that the memo is not entirely accurate. The lithmus test is usually to ignore biased, one-sided editorials, especially if part of it is proven to be untrue. If you can ignore that in the case of Obama b/c you are so opposed to him, that's fine, just don't expect folks like me not to point it out.[hr]
Do you want me to declare simply the facts, the facts and then analysis or what? Should I offer insight as to why he did certain things?

You're McCain list will be a joke compared to someone friendly with and supported by terrorists and bigots, but its your call.


Use the same format as the one on the memo that you, upon first glance, took at face value. Apparently you liked the style of whoever created that memo, you don't have to change for my sake.

[4Reaganomics]

No problem I'll have it up in a short bit.

[4Reaganomics]

See, new thread

Where is your list of McCain now??? I think it is only fair that we have equal time to prepare.

[Buck Laser]

I just skimmed through the list, but it looked pretty good to me. The only one that caught my attention was the "murky religious convictions." I don't think they're a bit murky. He's a Christian, and a very dedicated one. He expounds his religious views clearly in The Audacity of Hope which I recommend to anyone who really wants to understand what Obama wants to achieve.

Although the points in this list are all cast in an adversarial tone, I agree with pretty much all of them.

[Chris]

Apparently you didn't click on the link Chris provided where he refuted nearly all of it. And I'm sure you haven't taken the time to read up on everything Obama has ever done in his career to give you reason not to doubt what you read. So just say you'd prefer to read ignorance and accept it as fact as opposed to being informed. We understand.

Well he ranted about some of it, he rationalized some of it, but I don't see where he refuted anything.

The narrative aside, the rest is pretty factual. It is going to depend on just where your sympathies lay as to whether you see them as being a negative or a positive.

Though I must admit, I have no idea what this one means.

* Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.


I admit I did a rush job but there are Blatant falsehoods in the email. Also On the religion angle, It has no bearing on a presidential candidate. Unless you can point to where it says in the constitution you have to believe in Jebus to be president.[hr]

So now we are left with the fact that those of you who agree with the memo should start supporting it with facts. There are no links provided in the memo. Please give the reason you believe, based upon just reading an obviously biased document, that it must be true.

Let the games begin.[hr]
That link is Hocus Pocus. Obama doesn't want to increase Capital gains tax because he didn't vote on it, riiiight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19obama.html

Read it all.

There you go, the source on liberal news has said he want to increase that capital gains tax

How could our promising poster have missed that?

Do you want me to post more discrepancies in his comments, or is one sufficient for you to realize that his link of proof is a blog and the responses can't be taken factually?


I'd much prefer you post links to prove that the memo in its entirety is factual. That makes a lot more sense. You see, before you did your little research you couldn't seem to find any discrepancies in what you read. I've already found 4 lies and I haven't read the entire memo. So again, if you want to take it as fact you should have sound reasons to do so.




I respectfully asked for anything that was known to be untrue to be verified with factual links, and there truth could be debated upon.

I said I was unsure of certain things. I do not know Obama's entire voting record and his "present" vote often confuses me.

I was unaware that someone had to be vote on something to support it or denouce it. I personally thought that rhetoric of support or against was good enough to meet the criteria for understanding one's beliefs. The link shown to me was not adequate to refute a good amount of the items in the e-mail.

There are a few things in the e-mail I can see that are not entire truths. I can also say that there are things in Brian's blog that are blatantly false.

My point, a lot of the points made in the e-mail are true and are very scary to this nations future if Obama were to be president. There are a few inconsistencies in the e-mail that can be noted, but I can put together a list of "The Real Barack Obama"

Do you want me to really outline this man's history, proven beliefs, associations, voting record (have to love the present vote), etc.?[hr]

Its not my email and I have no interest in attempting to "defend" it. It states some things that are positions Obama has taken or offered in the course of the campaign.

If it is your claim that he has not really taken those positions, or that those positions somehow offend you, then I guess you are the one that needs to be looking into the veracity of them to satisfy your own interests.

None of them have the impact that they would change my opinion of Obama one way or the other. So why would I want to spend time attempting to justify them to someone who probably agrees with most of them anyway.

This is one game you can play by yourself if you have a mind to.



I don't recall asking you to defend it; as a matter of fact I don't recall responding to your post period. That being said if you are intellectually biased enough to take a scathing one-sided memo at face value without attempting to decide if it is factual then that says a lot about your ability to be rational, honest and fair. It is one thing to look at it and decide it won't change your opinion one way or the other and an entirely other thing to decide it must be true if no one can prove it's false. You said, now that I've actually read your previous post because I hadn't bothered to so before, 'it looks pretty factual.' Again, that would mean that you have taken the time to familarize yourself with each of the issues discussed in that memo and I doubt that you have. Several of them are outright lies so it's fine with me if you can cherrypick a biased memo and determine which facts you are ok with. Not all of us have or even want the ability to do the same.


Didn't you offer Brian's "blog" as truthful support when a good deal of it is certainly not true?



If you looked past your bias for a minute, I did provide a few links within the blog post. The abortion vote for starters. The email claims he voted for partial birth abortion WHICH IS FALSE And Also it says he voted against the "patriot" act WHICH IS FALSE.

Look at the links I provided.

[4Reaganomics]

IF you think that a candidate's religious history doesn't have an effect on an election you are sadly mistaken. If Mitt Romney were a christian, the republican race would have been a whole different story.

Your religious beliefs tell a good story about who you are. For instance, muslims believe that muslim women can only marry muslim men.

I believe that women should be free to choose their husband, and I do not agree with that muslim position. I personally could not vote for a candidate that exploited women's rights, even if it was through "religious" belief.[hr]

Apparently you didn't click on the link Chris provided where he refuted nearly all of it. And I'm sure you haven't taken the time to read up on everything Obama has ever done in his career to give you reason not to doubt what you read. So just say you'd prefer to read ignorance and accept it as fact as opposed to being informed. We understand.

Well he ranted about some of it, he rationalized some of it, but I don't see where he refuted anything.

The narrative aside, the rest is pretty factual. It is going to depend on just where your sympathies lay as to whether you see them as being a negative or a positive.

Though I must admit, I have no idea what this one means.

* Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.


I admit I did a rush job but there are Blatant falsehoods in the email. Also On the religion angle, It has no bearing on a presidential candidate. Unless you can point to where it says in the constitution you have to believe in Jebus to be president.[hr]

So now we are left with the fact that those of you who agree with the memo should start supporting it with facts. There are no links provided in the memo. Please give the reason you believe, based upon just reading an obviously biased document, that it must be true.

Let the games begin.[hr]
That link is Hocus Pocus. Obama doesn't want to increase Capital gains tax because he didn't vote on it, riiiight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19obama.html

Read it all.

There you go, the source on liberal news has said he want to increase that capital gains tax

How could our promising poster have missed that?

Do you want me to post more discrepancies in his comments, or is one sufficient for you to realize that his link of proof is a blog and the responses can't be taken factually?


I'd much prefer you post links to prove that the memo in its entirety is factual. That makes a lot more sense. You see, before you did your little research you couldn't seem to find any discrepancies in what you read. I've already found 4 lies and I haven't read the entire memo. So again, if you want to take it as fact you should have sound reasons to do so.




I respectfully asked for anything that was known to be untrue to be verified with factual links, and there truth could be debated upon.

I said I was unsure of certain things. I do not know Obama's entire voting record and his "present" vote often confuses me.

I was unaware that someone had to be vote on something to support it or denouce it. I personally thought that rhetoric of support or against was good enough to meet the criteria for understanding one's beliefs. The link shown to me was not adequate to refute a good amount of the items in the e-mail.

There are a few things in the e-mail I can see that are not entire truths. I can also say that there are things in Brian's blog that are blatantly false.

My point, a lot of the points made in the e-mail are true and are very scary to this nations future if Obama were to be president. There are a few inconsistencies in the e-mail that can be noted, but I can put together a list of "The Real Barack Obama"

Do you want me to really outline this man's history, proven beliefs, associations, voting record (have to love the present vote), etc.?[hr]

Its not my email and I have no interest in attempting to "defend" it. It states some things that are positions Obama has taken or offered in the course of the campaign.

If it is your claim that he has not really taken those positions, or that those positions somehow offend you, then I guess you are the one that needs to be looking into the veracity of them to satisfy your own interests.

None of them have the impact that they would change my opinion of Obama one way or the other. So why would I want to spend time attempting to justify them to someone who probably agrees with most of them anyway.

This is one game you can play by yourself if you have a mind to.



I don't recall asking you to defend it; as a matter of fact I don't recall responding to your post period. That being said if you are intellectually biased enough to take a scathing one-sided memo at face value without attempting to decide if it is factual then that says a lot about your ability to be rational, honest and fair. It is one thing to look at it and decide it won't change your opinion one way or the other and an entirely other thing to decide it must be true if no one can prove it's false. You said, now that I've actually read your previous post because I hadn't bothered to so before, 'it looks pretty factual.' Again, that would mean that you have taken the time to familarize yourself with each of the issues discussed in that memo and I doubt that you have. Several of them are outright lies so it's fine with me if you can cherrypick a biased memo and determine which facts you are ok with. Not all of us have or even want the ability to do the same.


Didn't you offer Brian's "blog" as truthful support when a good deal of it is certainly not true?



If you looked past your bias for a minute, I did provide a few links within the blog post. The abortion vote for starters. The email claims he voted for partial birth abortion WHICH IS FALSE And Also it says he voted against the "patriot" act WHICH IS FALSE.

Look at the links I provided.


ARE YOU READING THIS THING

IT SAID OPPOSED THE PATRIOT ACT not "VOTED AGAINST"

Since when do you need to be in public office or vote on something to oppose it? Obama has always "Opposed" the patriot act when asked about it.

He denounced it in the past, thus he "Opposed" it

Jesus Christ[/u]

[nevadamedic]

I did a write up in a response to one of those awful email forwards. Maybe you guys can also pick apart the BS email. I will repost the email here but will only provide a link (http://chris1051.blogspot.com/2008/03/barack-obama-smear-campaign.html) to my write up as that may push the limits of a post length.
Looks like a bunch of crap filled with falsehoods geared towards the Neocons. (like "Most Americans" LOL)

Here is the original Forward as it was sent:

Subject: The Obama Tidal Wave

We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare
magnitude. His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers
have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of "Change" or that he
says he will be a Uniterian. The power of speech from a charismatic person
truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma and both
his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions. On the
extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions and the
results were catastrophic. Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy
Graham, but for many Americans out there feeling just like a surfer who
might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, the real story is
what happens when it hits shore.
Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:

* He voted against banning partial " birth abortion.
* He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
* Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.
* In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.
* Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
* Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.
* His religious convictions are very murky.
* He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il andMahmoud Ahmadinejad.
* Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.
* Opposed the Patriot Act.
* First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.
* Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.
* Supports universal health-care.
* Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
* Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
* Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
* Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
* Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
* Wants to make the minimum wage a "living wage".
* Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.
* Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
* Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.
* He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax
* He voted No on repealing the "Death" Tax
* He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
* Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
* He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.


If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think
that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place,
then you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this Email. If you
are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly
not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or
better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very
foundations of this great Country. We have limited time to save America or
the Supreme Court as we know it. Inaction is action.

If you agree this is important, pass it on. The mainstream media will not
do it for you!


So when people post the truth it's fearmongering, sacremongering or smearing? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.[hr]Oh and I forgot people who talk the truth about Obama are also called racists.

[Chris]

IF you think that a candidate's religious history doesn't have an effect on an election you are sadly mistaken. If Mitt Romney were a christian, the republican race would have been a whole different story.

Your religious beliefs tell a good story about who you are. For instance, muslims believe that muslim women can only marry muslim men.

I believe that women should be free to choose their husband, and I do not agree with that muslim position. I personally could not vote for a candidate that exploited women's rights, even if it was through "religious" belief.[hr]

Apparently you didn't click on the link Chris provided where he refuted nearly all of it. And I'm sure you haven't taken the time to read up on everything Obama has ever done in his career to give you reason not to doubt what you read. So just say you'd prefer to read ignorance and accept it as fact as opposed to being informed. We understand.

Well he ranted about some of it, he rationalized some of it, but I don't see where he refuted anything.

The narrative aside, the rest is pretty factual. It is going to depend on just where your sympathies lay as to whether you see them as being a negative or a positive.

Though I must admit, I have no idea what this one means.

* Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.


I admit I did a rush job but there are Blatant falsehoods in the email. Also On the religion angle, It has no bearing on a presidential candidate. Unless you can point to where it says in the constitution you have to believe in Jebus to be president.[hr]

So now we are left with the fact that those of you who agree with the memo should start supporting it with facts. There are no links provided in the memo. Please give the reason you believe, based upon just reading an obviously biased document, that it must be true.

Let the games begin.[hr]
That link is Hocus Pocus. Obama doesn't want to increase Capital gains tax because he didn't vote on it, riiiight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19obama.html

Read it all.

There you go, the source on liberal news has said he want to increase that capital gains tax

How could our promising poster have missed that?

Do you want me to post more discrepancies in his comments, or is one sufficient for you to realize that his link of proof is a blog and the responses can't be taken factually?


I'd much prefer you post links to prove that the memo in its entirety is factual. That makes a lot more sense. You see, before you did your little research you couldn't seem to find any discrepancies in what you read. I've already found 4 lies and I haven't read the entire memo. So again, if you want to take it as fact you should have sound reasons to do so.




I respectfully asked for anything that was known to be untrue to be verified with factual links, and there truth could be debated upon.

I said I was unsure of certain things. I do not know Obama's entire voting record and his "present" vote often confuses me.

I was unaware that someone had to be vote on something to support it or denouce it. I personally thought that rhetoric of support or against was good enough to meet the criteria for understanding one's beliefs. The link shown to me was not adequate to refute a good amount of the items in the e-mail.

There are a few things in the e-mail I can see that are not entire truths. I can also say that there are things in Brian's blog that are blatantly false.

My point, a lot of the points made in the e-mail are true and are very scary to this nations future if Obama were to be president. There are a few inconsistencies in the e-mail that can be noted, but I can put together a list of "The Real Barack Obama"

Do you want me to really outline this man's history, proven beliefs, associations, voting record (have to love the present vote), etc.?[hr]

Its not my email and I have no interest in attempting to "defend" it. It states some things that are positions Obama has taken or offered in the course of the campaign.

If it is your claim that he has not really taken those positions, or that those positions somehow offend you, then I guess you are the one that needs to be looking into the veracity of them to satisfy your own interests.

None of them have the impact that they would change my opinion of Obama one way or the other. So why would I want to spend time attempting to justify them to someone who probably agrees with most of them anyway.

This is one game you can play by yourself if you have a mind to.



I don't recall asking you to defend it; as a matter of fact I don't recall responding to your post period. That being said if you are intellectually biased enough to take a scathing one-sided memo at face value without attempting to decide if it is factual then that says a lot about your ability to be rational, honest and fair. It is one thing to look at it and decide it won't change your opinion one way or the other and an entirely other thing to decide it must be true if no one can prove it's false. You said, now that I've actually read your previous post because I hadn't bothered to so before, 'it looks pretty factual.' Again, that would mean that you have taken the time to familarize yourself with each of the issues discussed in that memo and I doubt that you have. Several of them are outright lies so it's fine with me if you can cherrypick a biased memo and determine which facts you are ok with. Not all of us have or even want the ability to do the same.


Didn't you offer Brian's "blog" as truthful support when a good deal of it is certainly not true?



If you looked past your bias for a minute, I did provide a few links within the blog post. The abortion vote for starters. The email claims he voted for partial birth abortion WHICH IS FALSE And Also it says he voted against the "patriot" act WHICH IS FALSE.

Look at the links I provided.


ARE YOU READING THIS THING

IT SAID OPPOSED THE PATRIOT ACT not "VOTED AGAINST"

Since when do you need to be in public office or vote on something to oppose it? Obama has always "Opposed" the patriot act when asked about it.

He denounced it in the past, thus he "Opposed" it

Jesus Christ[/u]


What if he was an atheist? Would you think he not be qualified to be president? If you say yes, welcome to my ignore list.

Also I, Along with a huge majority of Americans oppose the so called "patriot" act.[hr]

I did a write up in a response to one of those awful email forwards. Maybe you guys can also pick apart the BS email. I will repost the email here but will only provide a link (http://chris1051.blogspot.com/2008/03/barack-obama-smear-campaign.html) to my write up as that may push the limits of a post length.
Looks like a bunch of crap filled with falsehoods geared towards the Neocons. (like "Most Americans" LOL)

Here is the original Forward as it was sent:

Subject: The Obama Tidal Wave

We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare
magnitude. His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers
have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of "Change" or that he
says he will be a Uniterian. The power of speech from a charismatic person
truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma and both
his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions. On the
extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions and the
results were catastrophic. Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy
Graham, but for many Americans out there feeling just like a surfer who
might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, the real story is
what happens when it hits shore.
Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:

* He voted against banning partial " birth abortion.
* He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
* Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.
* In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.
* Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
* Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.
* His religious convictions are very murky.
* He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il andMahmoud Ahmadinejad.
* Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.
* Opposed the Patriot Act.
* First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.
* Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.
* Supports universal health-care.
* Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
* Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
* Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
* Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
* Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
* Wants to make the minimum wage a "living wage".
* Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.
* Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
* Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.
* He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax
* He voted No on repealing the "Death" Tax
* He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
* Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
* He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.


If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think
that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place,
then you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this Email. If you
are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly
not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or
better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very
foundations of this great Country. We have limited time to save America or
the Supreme Court as we know it. Inaction is action.

If you agree this is important, pass it on. The mainstream media will not
do it for you!


So when people post the truth it's fearmongering, sacremongering or smearing? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.[hr]Oh and I forgot people who talk the truth about Obama are also called racists.


How have you proven the email was truth?

If you can't counter the falsehoods in the email -proving them to be true, welcome to my ignore list.

[Buck Laser]

How have you proven the email was truth?

If you can't counter the falsehoods in the email -proving them to be true, welcome to my ignore list.

Chris, truth means nothing to these guys. They wanta beat Obama. Nothing else matters to them :dizzy:

[4Reaganomics]

Chris, I will not be intimidated by you threatening to put me on your "ignore" list.

I personally would not vote for an atheist. I believe that our founding fathers went to great lengths to recognize a creator in the constitution. We have printed "God" on our money and claimed our country "under God" in our pledge. To deny a creator, after our founding fathers were adamant about his presence, is incorrect in my opinion.

It is possible that an atheist could do well, however I personally would not vote for one.

[AnnEsthesia]

One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true.

When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not once.

The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.

The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" (see below). This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.

None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.

Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.

If the Christian Right Extremists wish to return this country to its beginnings, so be it... because it was a climate of Freethought. The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. In a sermon that was reported in newspapers, Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought. The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if the Christian Extremists had their way with this country.

Consider this: IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing, "God-fearing" men, would there ever have been a revolution at all?

"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23

Would they have initiated a rebellion if indeed they thought it was equal to witchcraft (a crime punishable by death)? But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.

1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."

Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

The Founders clearly did not heed what was written in the bible. If they were in fact "good" Christians, there would never have been an American Revolution. Compare the above passages with the Declaration of Independence:

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations... evinces a design to reduce (the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

Anyone who can think for themselves can see that the Founders were not Christians.



http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

[4Reaganomics]

never said Christian their genius

I said acknowledged a "creator"

Hence, they were not "atheist"

[AnnEsthesia]

So? What does someone's personal religious beliefs have to do with anything? Are you really that shallow?

[4Reaganomics]

No, I would like to have a leader who somewhat agrees with our founding fathers principles. The lack of God and socialism is not something that I would vote for. Sorry

[AnnEsthesia]

Yea, because all atheists are socialists. I am sure the republican atheists are glad to hear that.

[4Reaganomics]

because there is such an abundance of them

and I just made a correlation between atheists and socialists as two things I wouldn't vote for, I was not stating that they were strongly related

[AnnEsthesia]

Don't forget Muslims.

[4Reaganomics]

why would I vote for someone who believes in a religion that oppresses women?

[AnnEsthesia]

Culture suppresses women, not the religion. Try to educate yourself.

[4Reaganomics]

really, it isn't a belief within the muslim religion that muslim women are mandated to marry muslim men but muslim men can marry whoever they please

I'm pretty sure that is religious policy

[AnnEsthesia]

Find me the part of the Koran that supports that. As far as I have ever read, it is a CULTURAL thing, not a religious one. Perhaps jafar will know more.[hr]Actually, I found this:

(12)Muslim women cannot marry Jewish or Christian men: This common misconception is advocated and promoted by men but have no basis in the Quran. Quran gives both men and women the right to marry from the people of the book, i.e. Muslims (Submitters), Jews or Christians. God also reminds us that the marriage to a believer is much better than the marriage to an idolworshiper. See 5:5 and 2:221. See also; Marriage in the Quran, and A Marriage question and answer from the Quran.

http://www.submission.org/women/mis.html

[Chris]

Chris, I will not be intimidated by you threatening to put me on your "ignore" list.

I personally would not vote for an atheist. I believe that our founding fathers went to great lengths to recognize a creator in the constitution. We have printed "God" on our money and claimed our country "under God" in our pledge. To deny a creator, after our founding fathers were adamant about his presence, is incorrect in my opinion.

It is possible that an atheist could do well, however I personally would not vote for one.


It wasnt supposed to be an intimidation or a threat. I was just trying to see where you stand on the issue. I would really like to see where the founding fathers recognize a creator in the constitution. The "under god" BS was placed in by the knights of columbus in the 1950s[hr]
No, I would like to have a leader who somewhat agrees with our founding fathers principles. The lack of God and socialism is not something that I would vote for. Sorry




You are not up to speed, if you read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamen Franklin et al, you will see that although some may have been religious (It was almost mandatory in their time) the founding fathers were radical - to be secularists. They were ardent secularists. Thomas Jefferson is the founding Father of "Separation of church and state"

Get some learnin' in ya.

[Peet]

Actually, the big problem with this viral Obama e-mail is that it is so illiterate. Filled with grammar errors, stuffed with broad generaliztions, half-truths, non-cited statements, straw men, guilt by association (so Obama is not exactly like Hitler, huh? That's mighty white of them...). In short, it's a catalog of propaganda techniques that any 8th grader could see through. The troyble with responding to stuff like that is that you get sucked in to taking it seriously. If anyone seriously believes that voting for Obama will, in the words of the e-mail, "undermine the very foundations of the country," then take that statement and run with it. Here's your debate topic: Resolved--That voting for Obama will undermine the very foundations of the country. Good luck.

[Chris]

why would I vote for someone who believes in a religion that oppresses women?
SO you are buying in to this BS that Obama is a Muslim?

I feel sorry for you.

[ViolaLee]

No, I would like to have a leader who somewhat agrees with our founding fathers principles. The lack of God and socialism is not something that I would vote for. Sorry
Our founding father's principles had nothing to do with religion, in fact, they decided not to put religious text into their principles.

[Sublimating]

A wise man (my late pastor) once told me that the most effective lies are the ones that are mixed together with a little truth. This little list is a perfect example.

[Chris]

That link is Hocus Pocus. Obama doesn't want to increase Capital gains tax because he didn't vote on it, riiiight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19obama.html

Read it all.

There you go, the source on liberal news has said he want to increase that capital gains tax

How could our promising poster have missed that?

Do you want me to post more discrepancies in his comments, or is one sufficient for you to realize that his link of proof is a blog and the responses can't be taken factually?


So you just skimmed over that part about him not having ever voted for partial birth abortion - when the email claims he did?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[4Reaganomics]

I'm pretty sure that that was one of those important issues that Obama voted "present" on, in order to protect his political career.

This is something he did quite often on important issues in the state senate. Let me inform you of something you might have not been aware of.

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. Gonzales

So he refused to vote for banning partial birth abortion, that is what the e-mail should have said in order to avoid confusion.

This article goes into further detail about how your ever so honest Obama avoided the important issues for political gain. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html

Please note that if you want to talk about an issue with me about Obama, I would be glad to. We can forget the e-mail and debate what I think of Obama vs. what you think of Obama.

I think he voted to raise capital gains tax and income tax on anyone making 31,000 dollars a year, you know "the new rich".

I also took 25 minutes a few weeks ago to comment on Barack in a thread titled "The Real Barack Obama" and it did not even go into depth on many new issues that have arisen

particularly the racist bigot "pastor of disastor"


SO take a week again, and attempt to find a way to defend Obama through a possible inconsistency in the e-mail while spreading complete lack of facts like "Obama isn't raising capital gains tax"

I'll be here telling the truth about him the whole time

[Tsky]

"I think he voted to raise capital gains tax and income tax on anyone making 31,000 dollars a year, you know "the new rich". 4reaganomics

You 'think' or you 'know'.

Still confused about why any of us are debating with someone who still believes Obama is a Muslim...as if a person that delusional would really be a good source of information about anyone.

Next.

[Wndrtch]

I have seen that before, I have never bothered to read it, not even today. It will get worse. HRC is going out of her way to remind America that they are about to put a black President in office, she's so opposed to it she'd rather see McCain in the White House.

It's only going to get better...


So, are those bullets-pionts accurate or not?

I do agree with you that if she doesn't get the nod, she will work overtime to sink Obama in the general, but not because he is black, but because she will want to keep the door open for another run in 4 years.

She can't do that, if Obama is the President. She wouldn't be able to run again in 8 years either, unless she is picked as Obama's VP. If not, then she will need to wait until there is a Republican President before she will be able to go at it again.

I can't wait until the Dems sink her officially! She will make Carl Rove look like a school girl, going after Obama.