no. i really did ride for obama as far as if I had to pick a democrat. My only reservation was that I thought his stance on Iraq - that he would withdraw without reservation under any circumstances no matter what they were on his taking office. But now I have real questions about his "love of America" for a lack of a better term as opposed to personal ambition. The man doesnt wear the flag (fine, maybe its a lettle overdone), wont put hand on heart for national anthem (hmmm), wife says she has never been proud of America (thats not good), and now this stuff with Wright and Rezko. I'm sorry, maybe when you grow up in private schools and universities and then go into progressive politics that kind of stuff that Wright said isn't controversial, but i have real problem with it. I thought obama would be possitive because i thought maybe he really would be a candidate that transcended race and that would be good for the country, but now I dont think he is, and he hasnt been able to show me otherwise and the price of taking that risk is too high.
What do you think will happen to this country is Obama is elected president?
Seriously.
i think that there will be a certain amount of credit we will receive in a part of the world where we desparately need to gain some credit. But, in the same instant i think that withdrawing from Iraq at this point in time is bad for our interests and invites a real humanitarian disaster regardless of what your views are on how the war started, how its been prosecuted, the cost, etc. I also think that we would lose a lot of credibility with anyone we have told we would help fight for democracy. domestically, a lot would have to do with whether he had a majority senate and house, his potential for real damage would probably not be that great, there are some things he supports that i agree with as far as self-hgelp and personal responsibility. I think he would be an obvious role model, i think he at least has his personal life in order - unlike a lot of politicians on both sides.
no. i really did ride for obama as far as if I had to pick a democrat. My only reservation was that I thought his stance on Iraq - that he would withdraw without reservation under any circumstances no matter what they were on his taking office. But now I have real questions about his "love of America" for a lack of a better term as opposed to personal ambition. The man doesnt wear the flag (fine, maybe its a lettle overdone)you are corny[/b], wont put hand on heart for national anthem (hmmm)you're not supposed to put your hand on your heart for the NA, you're supposed to do it for the pledge, which he does[/b], wife says she has never been proud of America (thats not good)oh come on dude, you're normally rational - its pretty obvious she is talking about american POLITICS, not america as a whole[/b], and now this stuff with Wright are you entirely unfamiliar w/ the history of race[/b] and Rezko bullshit smear with 0 evidence of any wrongdoing, or even the appearance of wrongdoing. after playing captain save-a-ho on the myriad bush scandals this is hypocrisy of the worst kind[/b]. I'm sorry, maybe when you grow up in private schools and universities and then go into progressive politics that kind of stuff that Wright said isn't controversial, but i have real problem with it. and...? its obviously not the approach obama takes. if you remember, his whole appeal to you was because he's not like his pastor. acting like hes what, faking it? is so disingenuous[/b] I thought obama would be possitive because i thought maybe he really would be a candidate that transcended race and that would be good for the country, but now I dont think he is, and he hasnt been able to show me otherwise and the price of taking that risk is too high. wtf do you mean by 'transcended race' - pretended it wasn't an issue?[/b]
ive defended you a bunch of times in threads where liberals on this site were making unfair interpretations of the facts to fit into some fake narrative, as have others, but you're now guilty of the same sub par partisan hackwork here man. sorry.
no. i really did ride for obama as far as if I had to pick a democrat. My only reservation was that I thought his stance on Iraq - that he would withdraw without reservation under any circumstances no matter what they were on his taking office. But now I have real questions about his "love of America" for a lack of a better term as opposed to personal ambition. The man doesnt wear the flag (fine, maybe its a lettle overdone), wont put hand on heart for national anthem (hmmm), wife says she has never been proud of America (thats not good), and now this stuff with Wright and Rezko. I'm sorry, maybe when you grow up in private schools and universities and then go into progressive politics that kind of stuff that Wright said isn't controversial, but i have real problem with it. I thought obama would be possitive because i thought maybe he really would be a candidate that transcended race and that would be good for the country, but now I dont think he is, and he hasnt been able to show me otherwise and the price of taking that risk is too high.
What do you think will happen to this country is Obama is elected president?
Seriously.
i think that there will be a certain amount of credit we will receive in a part of the world where we desparately need to gain some credit. But, in the same instant i think that withdrawing from Iraq at this point in time is bad for our interests and invites a real humanitarian disaster regardless of what your views are on how the war started, how its been prosecuted, the cost, etc. I also think that we would lose a lot of credibility with anyone we have told we would help fight for democracy. domestically, a lot would have to do with whether he had a majority senate and house, his potential for real damage would probably not be that great, there are some things he supports that i agree with as far as self-hgelp and personal responsibility. I think he would be an obvious role model, i think he at least has his personal life in order - unlike a lot of politicians on both sides.
what did you think of his advisor's 'slip up' that he wouldnt necessarily withdraw based on the situation on the ground at the time he actually arrived in office? clinton nearly beheaded him over it but it seems like this PRAGMATIC PRACTICALITY directly contradicts your concerns
no. i really did ride for obama as far as if I had to pick a democrat. My only reservation was that I thought his stance on Iraq - that he would withdraw without reservation under any circumstances no matter what they were on his taking office. But now I have real questions about his "love of America" for a lack of a better term as opposed to personal ambition. The man doesnt wear the flag (fine, maybe its a lettle overdone), wont put hand on heart for national anthem (hmmm), wife says she has never been proud of America (thats not good), and now this stuff with Wright and Rezko. I'm sorry, maybe when you grow up in private schools and universities and then go into progressive politics that kind of stuff that Wright said isn't controversial, but i have real problem with it. I thought obama would be possitive because i thought maybe he really would be a candidate that transcended race and that would be good for the country, but now I dont think he is, and he hasnt been able to show me otherwise and the price of taking that risk is too high.
What do you think will happen to this country is Obama is elected president?
Seriously.
i think that there will be a certain amount of credit we will receive in a part of the world where we desparately need to gain some credit. But, in the same instant i think that withdrawing from Iraq at this point in time is bad for our interests and invites a real humanitarian disaster regardless of what your views are on how the war started, how its been prosecuted, the cost, etc. I also think that we would lose a lot of credibility with anyone we have told we would help fight for democracy. domestically, a lot would have to do with whether he had a majority senate and house, his potential for real damage would probably not be that great, there are some things he supports that i agree with as far as self-hgelp and personal responsibility. I think he would be an obvious role model, i think he at least has his personal life in order - unlike a lot of politicians on both sides.
Uh oh - rational Saba is back! It's so Jeckyll/Hyde in this thread.
For real: " real humanitarian disaster regardless of what your views are on how the war started, how its been prosecuted, the cost, etc." is the realest shit he ever wrote. BUT - if you listen to what Obama has said about the difference b/t "tactical" and "strategic" withdrawal, it's basically code-speak for "I'm not stupid enough to pull all the troops out the day after inauguration" .
no. i really did ride for obama as far as if I had to pick a democrat. My only reservation was that I thought his stance on Iraq - that he would withdraw without reservation under any circumstances no matter what they were on his taking office. But now I have real questions about his "love of America" for a lack of a better term as opposed to personal ambition. The man doesnt wear the flag (fine, maybe its a lettle overdone)you are corny[/b], wont put hand on heart for national anthem (hmmm)you're not supposed to put your hand on your heart for the NA, you're supposed to do it for the pledge, which he does[/b], wife says she has never been proud of America (thats not good)oh come on dude, you're normally rational - its pretty obvious she is talking about american POLITICS, not america as a whole[/b], and now this stuff with Wright are you entirely unfamiliar w/ the history of race[/b] and Rezko bullshit smear with 0 evidence of any wrongdoing, or even the appearance of wrongdoing. after playing captain save-a-ho on the myriad bush scandals this is hypocrisy of the worst kind[/b]. I'm sorry, maybe when you grow up in private schools and universities and then go into progressive politics that kind of stuff that Wright said isn't controversial, but i have real problem with it. and...? its obviously not the approach obama takes. if you remember, his whole appeal to you was because he's not like his pastor. acting like hes what, faking it? is so disingenuous[/b] I thought obama would be possitive because i thought maybe he really would be a candidate that transcended race and that would be good for the country, but now I dont think he is, and he hasnt been able to show me otherwise and the price of taking that risk is too high. wtf do you mean by 'transcended race' - pretended it wasn't an issue?[/b]
ive defended you a bunch of times in threads where liberals on this site were making unfair interpretations of the facts to fit into some fake narrative, as have others, but you're now guilty of the same sub par partisan hackwork here man. sorry.
its not that he doenst wear the pin, i dont wear it either, its that he intentional doesnt and this kind of rubs it in the nose of those simpletons that do.
you do to put your hand over your heart for the national anthem, i dont know what your cubscout manual says, but if you have ever been to a baseball game you stand, take off your hat, put your and on your heart. You say its obvious what he wife was thinking which is no argument at all - whenver someone says "its obvious" its always anything but. Your rezko line is lifted right out of a politico article or a glenn greenwald column, and i didnt beleive it then or now.
no. i really did ride for obama as far as if I had to pick a democrat. My only reservation was that I thought his stance on Iraq - that he would withdraw without reservation under any circumstances no matter what they were on his taking office. But now I have real questions about his "love of America" for a lack of a better term as opposed to personal ambition. The man doesnt wear the flag (fine, maybe its a lettle overdone)you are corny[/b], wont put hand on heart for national anthem (hmmm)you're not supposed to put your hand on your heart for the NA, you're supposed to do it for the pledge, which he does[/b], wife says she has never been proud of America (thats not good)oh come on dude, you're normally rational - its pretty obvious she is talking about american POLITICS, not america as a whole[/b], and now this stuff with Wright are you entirely unfamiliar w/ the history of race[/b] and Rezko bullshit smear with 0 evidence of any wrongdoing, or even the appearance of wrongdoing. after playing captain save-a-ho on the myriad bush scandals this is hypocrisy of the worst kind[/b]. I'm sorry, maybe when you grow up in private schools and universities and then go into progressive politics that kind of stuff that Wright said isn't controversial, but i have real problem with it. and...? its obviously not the approach obama takes. if you remember, his whole appeal to you was because he's not like his pastor. acting like hes what, faking it? is so disingenuous[/b] I thought obama would be possitive because i thought maybe he really would be a candidate that transcended race and that would be good for the country, but now I dont think he is, and he hasnt been able to show me otherwise and the price of taking that risk is too high. wtf do you mean by 'transcended race' - pretended it wasn't an issue?[/b]
ive defended you a bunch of times in threads where liberals on this site were making unfair interpretations of the facts to fit into some fake narrative, as have others, but you're now guilty of the same sub par partisan hackwork here man. sorry.
its not that he doenst wear the pin, i dont wear it either, its that he intentional doesnt and this kind of rubs it in the nose of those simpletons that do.
So you're offended not on your own behalf, but on behalf of people you describe as simpletons?
no. i really did ride for obama as far as if I had to pick a democrat. My only reservation was that I thought his stance on Iraq - that he would withdraw without reservation under any circumstances no matter what they were on his taking office. But now I have real questions about his "love of America" for a lack of a better term as opposed to personal ambition. The man doesnt wear the flag (fine, maybe its a lettle overdone), wont put hand on heart for national anthem (hmmm), wife says she has never been proud of America (thats not good), and now this stuff with Wright and Rezko. I'm sorry, maybe when you grow up in private schools and universities and then go into progressive politics that kind of stuff that Wright said isn't controversial, but i have real problem with it. I thought obama would be possitive because i thought maybe he really would be a candidate that transcended race and that would be good for the country, but now I dont think he is, and he hasnt been able to show me otherwise and the price of taking that risk is too high.
What do you think will happen to this country is Obama is elected president?
Seriously.
i think that there will be a certain amount of credit we will receive in a part of the world where we desparately need to gain some credit. But, in the same instant i think that withdrawing from Iraq at this point in time is bad for our interests and invites a real humanitarian disaster regardless of what your views are on how the war started, how its been prosecuted, the cost, etc. I also think that we would lose a lot of credibility with anyone we have told we would help fight for democracy. domestically, a lot would have to do with whether he had a majority senate and house, his potential for real damage would probably not be that great, there are some things he supports that i agree with as far as self-hgelp and personal responsibility. I think he would be an obvious role model, i think he at least has his personal life in order - unlike a lot of politicians on both sides.
what did you think of his advisor's 'slip up' that he wouldnt necessarily withdraw based on the situation on the ground at the time he actually arrived in office? clinton nearly beheaded him over it but it seems like this PRAGMATIC PRACTICALITY directly contradicts your concerns
i was actually really relieved about that, but then he quickly took it back because they were rattled by that whole NAFTA/Canada thing.
Your rezko line is lifted right out of a politico article or a glenn greenwald column, and i didnt beleive it then or now.
wtf are you basing this suspicion on, exactly
this 'where there's smoke there's fire' bullshit is exactly what is so infuriating about your sudden conversion to this type of shallow go-team-go partisan hackery
no. i really did ride for obama as far as if I had to pick a democrat. My only reservation was that I thought his stance on Iraq - that he would withdraw without reservation under any circumstances no matter what they were on his taking office. But now I have real questions about his "love of America" for a lack of a better term as opposed to personal ambition. The man doesnt wear the flag (fine, maybe its a lettle overdone)you are corny[/b], wont put hand on heart for national anthem (hmmm)you're not supposed to put your hand on your heart for the NA, you're supposed to do it for the pledge, which he does[/b], wife says she has never been proud of America (thats not good)oh come on dude, you're normally rational - its pretty obvious she is talking about american POLITICS, not america as a whole[/b], and now this stuff with Wright are you entirely unfamiliar w/ the history of race[/b] and Rezko bullshit smear with 0 evidence of any wrongdoing, or even the appearance of wrongdoing. after playing captain save-a-ho on the myriad bush scandals this is hypocrisy of the worst kind[/b]. I'm sorry, maybe when you grow up in private schools and universities and then go into progressive politics that kind of stuff that Wright said isn't controversial, but i have real problem with it. and...? its obviously not the approach obama takes. if you remember, his whole appeal to you was because he's not like his pastor. acting like hes what, faking it? is so disingenuous[/b] I thought obama would be possitive because i thought maybe he really would be a candidate that transcended race and that would be good for the country, but now I dont think he is, and he hasnt been able to show me otherwise and the price of taking that risk is too high. wtf do you mean by 'transcended race' - pretended it wasn't an issue?[/b]
ive defended you a bunch of times in threads where liberals on this site were making unfair interpretations of the facts to fit into some fake narrative, as have others, but you're now guilty of the same sub par partisan hackwork here man. sorry.
its not that he doenst wear the pin, i dont wear it either, its that he intentional doesnt and this kind of rubs it in the nose of those simpletons that do.
So you're offended not on your own behalf, but on behalf of people you describe as simpletons?
you forgot to point out that i spelled doenst wrong.
I was being sarcastic. (I was going to post the video of Homer saying "I will hug and kiss some poisonous snakes" to go along with this but all the simpsons cuts got taken off of youtube.
i also want to know, honestly, why you give a shit that obama follows every american colorguard tradition to the letter more than you value, say, not confusing 'sunni' and 'shiite'
i also want to know, honestly, why you give a shit that obama follows every american colorguard tradition to the letter more than you value, say, not confusing 'sunni' and 'shiite'
Your rezko line is lifted right out of a politico article or a glenn greenwald column, and i didnt beleive it then or now.
wtf are you basing this suspicion on, exactly
this 'where there's smoke there's fire' bullshit is exactly what is so infuriating about your sudden conversion to this type of shallow go-team-go partisan hackery
Greenwald: "The point isn't that there is no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama, although that's unquestionably true. It's far beyond that. There aren't even any theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong at all.
pretty close.
If you just insist on saying things like "there is nothing to this Rezko thing and if you think otherwise you are just a hack" doesnt make the problem go away, and even Obama admits that it was a mistake and there are some real ethiucal iessue with that kind of shit, or the fact that the hospital where his wife works gets a big piece of federal pork, and then she gets a raise or a bonus or something. Come on, give me an explanation, dont just tell me it doenst exist.
If you just insist on saying things like "there is nothing to this Rezko thing and if you think otherwise you are just a hack" doesnt make the problem go away, and even Obama admits that it was a mistake and there are some real ethiucal iessue with that kind of shit, or the fact that the hospital where his wife works gets a big piece of federal pork, and then she gets a raise or a bonus or something. Come on, give me an explanation, dont just tell me it doenst exist.
he said it was a 'mistake' politically, because he knew that people would read shit into it that doesnt exist. there has been no evidence or even the accusation of him making any ethical misconduct. period.
there is no evidence of collusion. the burden of proof is on you since you're the one making the accusation
the news media paying attention to rezko and repeatedly going "will this be an issue???" when there is no actual evidence that it is in any way is absurd. its also not a justification for the presumption of guilt
how is rezko any more of an issue than the mccain lobbyist story, except that republicans like to rally around hating the ny times?
If you just insist on saying things like "there is nothing to this Rezko thing and if you think otherwise you are just a hack" doesnt make the problem go away, and even Obama admits that it was a mistake and there are some real ethiucal iessue with that kind of shit, or the fact that the hospital where his wife works gets a big piece of federal pork, and then she gets a raise or a bonus or something. Come on, give me an explanation, dont just tell me it doenst exist.
he said it was a 'mistake' politically, because he knew that people would read shit into it that doesnt exist. there has been no evidence or even the accusation of him making any ethical misconduct. period.
there is no evidence of collusion. the burden of proof is on you since you're the one making the accusation
the news media paying attention to rezko and repeatedly going "will this be an issue???" when there is no actual evidence that it is in any way is absurd. its also not a justification for the presumption of guilt
how is rezko any more of an issue than the mccain lobbyist story, except that republicans like to rally around hating the ny times?
but obama was supposed to be different. he wasnt going to reject the old tit-for-tat, political favors, inside connections, form of government. Just because he isnt going to be indicted, you dont think that those deals for his house and the adjacent lot, the contributions that turn out to be twice what you first claim. You dont think that thats a problem for somebody who says "elect me, Im going to be different."
your sudden conversion to this type of shallow go-team-go partisan hackery
LOL. collective memory of the Strut = about 2 months. Saba's defense of Obama was (a) crassly political and (b) a distinct aberration relative to like 5+ yrs of GOP Kool Aid swilling.
I'm loving the outrage of some of you guys in this thread as Saba's recovery from a momentary lapse is treated as some sort of betrayal of his long-standing (read: since January) principles.
and it's patently obvious that everyone's willingness to concede that "hey, Saba's actually a pretty astute politcal observer!" just happened to coincide with the brief period during which he was supporting your candidate.
saba is, was, and always will be a right-wing lunatic. get over it.
your sudden conversion to this type of shallow go-team-go partisan hackery
LOL. collective memory of the Strut = about 2 months. Saba's defense of Obama was (a) crassly political and (b) a distinct aberration relative to like 5+ yrs of GOP Kool Aid swilling.
I'm loving the outrage of some of you guys in this thread as Saba's recovery from a momentary lapse is treated as some sort of betrayal of his long-standing (read: since January) principles.
and it's patently obvious that everyone's willingness to concede that "hey, Saba's actually a pretty astute politcal observer!" just happened to coincide with the brief period during which he was supporting your candidate.
saba is, was, and always will be a right-wing lunatic. get over it.
thank you.
P.S. ive only been here for like a year and a half. it just seems like 5.
your sudden conversion to this type of shallow go-team-go partisan hackery
LOL. collective memory of the Strut = about 2 months. Saba's defense of Obama was (a) crassly political and (b) a distinct aberration relative to like 5+ yrs of GOP Kool Aid swilling.
I'm loving the outrage of some of you guys in this thread as Saba's recovery from a momentary lapse is treated as some sort of betrayal of his long-standing (read: since January) principles.
and it's patently obvious that everyone's willingness to concede that "hey, Saba's actually a pretty astute politcal observer!" just happened to coincide with the brief period during which he was supporting your candidate.
saba is, was, and always will be a right-wing lunatic. get over it.
nah on non-obama related political issues he showed some reasoning and common sense. what is confusing to me now is his insistence that because obama said he wasn't corrupt, he can't have known someone who also happened to be corrupt, even if there is zero evidence actually linking them.
saba, you still haven't answered the issue w/r/t mccain because mccain claimed to have been above lobbyists as well. so how can you say this is any different from the mccain-nytimes controversy? plaese to explain
i love how you say 'just because he hasn't been indicted.' its not only that he hasn't been indicted - he hasn't been accused, investigated, censured, or even considered by any serious governing/police/investigative body. there is zero evidence! he knew a guy who was a crook! he didn't know he was a crook at the time! thats the extent of the 'corruption.' you're really reaching here.
mccain fucked up with his own friends in the S&L collapse, and has basically spent the last 30 years atoning for it. The article in the times was a hit piece based on an alleged affair. The S&L scandal was thrown in, because they didnt have any evidence of an affair so the had to dredge that shit up to give them a reason foir running it. Again, its more than just knowing somebody who is corrupt and it has a lot to do with how you present your own self. Part of Giuliani's problem was that his friend was corrupt and it killed his campaign, and he's not the first. Its not like Rezko was just some client at his firm.
mccain fucked up with his own friends in the S&L collapse, and has basically spent the last 30 years atoning for it. The article in the times was a hit piece based on an alleged affair. The S&L scandal was thrown in, because they didnt have any evidence of an affair so the had to dredge that shit up to give them a reason foir running it. Again, its more than just knowing somebody who is corrupt and it has a lot to do with how you present your own self. Part of Giuliani's problem was that his friend was corrupt and it killed his campaign, and he's not the first. Its not like Rezko was just some client at his firm.
uhhh no there was definitely more to the mccain article than the 20 year old scandal dude. in case you didn't realize it, the alleged affair was with a lobbyist, and during the alleged affair mccain sent a letter to a branch of regulatory govt urging the group to pass his alleged mistresses' employer's request 'posthaste,' for which he was publicly chastized by the regulators
maybe you should read the article sometime instead of assuming you know wtf you are talking about?
im not even saying mccain is guilty but you're either deliberately being misleading, or you are just entirely uninformed about the accusations leveled at mccain, which in some ways have more verifiable sources than any wrongdoing on the part of obama. in fact, there are ZERO sources re: wrongdoing on the part of obama
and it's patently obvious that everyone's willingness to concede that "hey, Saba's actually a pretty astute politcal observer!" just happened to coincide with the brief period during which he was supporting your candidate.
Naw, I actually thought he was saying some rational things that had nothing to do with Obama. Though, now that you mention it...the timing does seems suspicious...
I guess they started chemtrailling in Saba's neighborhood again.
mccain fucked up with his own friends in the S&L collapse, and has basically spent the last 30 years atoning for it. The article in the times was a hit piece based on an alleged affair. The S&L scandal was thrown in, because they didnt have any evidence of an affair so the had to dredge that shit up to give them a reason foir running it. Again, its more than just knowing somebody who is corrupt and it has a lot to do with how you present your own self. Part of Giuliani's problem was that his friend was corrupt and it killed his campaign, and he's not the first. Its not like Rezko was just some client at his firm.
uhhh no there was definitely more to the mccain article than the 20 year old scandal dude. in case you didn't realize it, the alleged affair was with a lobbyist, and during the alleged affair mccain sent a letter to a branch of regulatory govt urging the group to pass his alleged mistresses' employer's request 'posthaste,' for which he was publicly chastized by the regulators
maybe you should read the article sometime instead of assuming you know wtf you are talking about?
im not even saying mccain is guilty but you're either deliberately being misleading, or you are just entirely uninformed about the accusations leveled at mccain, which in some ways have more verifiable sources than any wrongdoing on the part of obama. in fact, there are ZERO sources re: wrongdoing on the part of obama
but like you said, its all alleged. so if the new york times can run with those types of unsubstantiated stories on the front page, why cant the Chicago Tribune ask the same questions about obama and Rezko?
Comments
b/w
People who worry about the patriotism of their leaders probably drive trucks with rubber testicles hanging off the back.
i think that there will be a certain amount of credit we will receive in a part of the world where we desparately need to gain some credit. But, in the same instant i think that withdrawing from Iraq at this point in time is bad for our interests and invites a real humanitarian disaster regardless of what your views are on how the war started, how its been prosecuted, the cost, etc. I also think that we would lose a lot of credibility with anyone we have told we would help fight for democracy. domestically, a lot would have to do with whether he had a majority senate and house, his potential for real damage would probably not be that great, there are some things he supports that i agree with as far as self-hgelp and personal responsibility. I think he would be an obvious role model, i think he at least has his personal life in order - unlike a lot of politicians on both sides.
ive defended you a bunch of times in threads where liberals on this site were making unfair interpretations of the facts to fit into some fake narrative, as have others, but you're now guilty of the same sub par partisan hackwork here man. sorry.
Uh oh - rational Saba is back! It's so Jeckyll/Hyde in this thread.
For real: " real humanitarian disaster regardless of what your views are on how the war started, how its been prosecuted, the cost, etc." is the realest shit he ever wrote. BUT - if you listen to what Obama has said about the difference b/t "tactical" and "strategic" withdrawal, it's basically code-speak for "I'm not stupid enough to pull all the troops out the day after inauguration" .
its not that he doenst wear the pin, i dont wear it either, its that he intentional doesnt and this kind of rubs it in the nose of those simpletons that do.
you do to put your hand over your heart for the national anthem, i dont know what your cubscout manual says, but if you have ever been to a baseball game you stand, take off your hat, put your and on your heart. You say its obvious what he wife was thinking which is no argument at all - whenver someone says "its obvious" its always anything but. Your rezko line is lifted right out of a politico article or a glenn greenwald column, and i didnt beleive it then or now.
So you're offended not on your own behalf, but on behalf of people you describe as simpletons?
i was actually really relieved about that, but then he quickly took it back because they were rattled by that whole NAFTA/Canada thing.
wtf are you basing this suspicion on, exactly
this 'where there's smoke there's fire' bullshit is exactly what is so infuriating about your sudden conversion to this type of shallow go-team-go partisan hackery
you forgot to point out that i spelled doenst wrong.
I was being sarcastic. (I was going to post the video of Homer saying "I will hug and kiss some poisonous snakes" to go along with this but all the simpsons cuts got taken off of youtube.
I look forward to the day when you don't stereotype me and put words in my mouth.
What exactly WAS my response??
Me??
Greenwald: "The point isn't that there is no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama, although that's unquestionably true. It's far beyond that. There aren't even any theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong at all.
pretty close.
If you just insist on saying things like "there is nothing to this Rezko thing and if you think otherwise you are just a hack" doesnt make the problem go away, and even Obama admits that it was a mistake and there are some real ethiucal iessue with that kind of shit, or the fact that the hospital where his wife works gets a big piece of federal pork, and then she gets a raise or a bonus or something. Come on, give me an explanation, dont just tell me it doenst exist.
he said it was a 'mistake' politically, because he knew that people would read shit into it that doesnt exist. there has been no evidence or even the accusation of him making any ethical misconduct. period.
there is no evidence of collusion. the burden of proof is on you since you're the one making the accusation
the news media paying attention to rezko and repeatedly going "will this be an issue???" when there is no actual evidence that it is in any way is absurd. its also not a justification for the presumption of guilt
how is rezko any more of an issue than the mccain lobbyist story, except that republicans like to rally around hating the ny times?
And I think people of all political stripes can come together and agree that that's a bunch of bullshit right there. Free Homer!
but obama was supposed to be different. he wasnt going to reject the old tit-for-tat, political favors, inside connections, form of government. Just because he isnt going to be indicted, you dont think that those deals for his house and the adjacent lot, the contributions that turn out to be twice what you first claim. You dont think that thats a problem for somebody who says "elect me, Im going to be different."
LOL. collective memory of the Strut = about 2 months. Saba's defense of Obama was (a) crassly political and (b) a distinct aberration relative to like 5+ yrs of GOP Kool Aid swilling.
I'm loving the outrage of some of you guys in this thread as Saba's recovery from a momentary lapse is treated as some sort of betrayal of his long-standing (read: since January) principles.
and it's patently obvious that everyone's willingness to concede that "hey, Saba's actually a pretty astute politcal observer!" just happened to coincide with the brief period during which he was supporting your candidate.
saba is, was, and always will be a right-wing lunatic. get over it.
thank you.
P.S. ive only been here for like a year and a half. it just seems like 5.
saba, you still haven't answered the issue w/r/t mccain because mccain claimed to have been above lobbyists as well. so how can you say this is any different from the mccain-nytimes controversy? plaese to explain
i love how you say 'just because he hasn't been indicted.' its not only that he hasn't been indicted - he hasn't been accused, investigated, censured, or even considered by any serious governing/police/investigative body. there is zero evidence! he knew a guy who was a crook! he didn't know he was a crook at the time! thats the extent of the 'corruption.' you're really reaching here.
maybe you should read the article sometime instead of assuming you know wtf you are talking about?
im not even saying mccain is guilty but you're either deliberately being misleading, or you are just entirely uninformed about the accusations leveled at mccain, which in some ways have more verifiable sources than any wrongdoing on the part of obama. in fact, there are ZERO sources re: wrongdoing on the part of obama
Naw, I actually thought he was saying some rational things that had nothing to do with Obama. Though, now that you mention it...the timing does seems suspicious...
I guess they started chemtrailling in Saba's neighborhood again.
but like you said, its all alleged. so if the new york times can run with those types of unsubstantiated stories on the front page, why cant the Chicago Tribune ask the same questions about obama and Rezko?
Seriously?
you still occasionally show vestiges of independent thought
Don't forget Vitamin as well.
I think it's kind of wack/weird too. It's not like the lefties on this site agree on everything (see: Middle East!)
but you at least have your presidential ticket straight now that you've cowed poor KVH into throwing Hillary under the bus.