Quote :

"it was because [Bin Laden] considered us as infidels. all the 'other' reasons are just excuses. you libs just dont get it. the US could've been farting rainbows and crapping gold nuggets in middle eastern foreign policy and this asshole would still want to cut your wife's head off in front of you with a dull knife."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

In Bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa, he explicitly lists reasons why he felt that we should be attacked. Perhaps Bin Laden doesn't truly mean what he said in that Fatwa, and perhaps he just referenced those specific reasons to incite animosity amongst fellow Muslims. However, that would insinuate that some portion of the Muslim community finds those reasons to be valid reasons for attack.

3/28/2008 5:18:38 PM

Quote :

"valid reasons for attack"

the're still completely unreasonable reasons to carry out large attacks on civilians...why must some people give them a pseudo-free-pass just because the crazy shit they do makes sense to them?

3/28/2008 5:20:56 PM

Hillary Clinton just said "My mom would be a better president than my dad was"

3/28/2008 5:23:50 PM

^Chelsea ?

But I hope that wasn't a typo, it would be more fun if HRC called slick willy daddy.

3/28/2008 8:26:49 PM

Yes, it was Chelsea.


The Clinton's have to have this light humor every once in awhile to in an attempt to make America forget that Hillary is one crazy bitch.

3/28/2008 8:28:23 PM

if its clinton/obama, either clinton could win and obama would prolly be pres or mccain would win and obama could go in 2012 as the person that should have been nominated in 2008

3/29/2008 1:14:13 AM

^wat

3/29/2008 6:55:42 AM

Quote :

"Why do you support Obama?"

Let me quote page p.125 and p.126 of Obamas own book "Dreams of my father"

I quote: (obamas mother is telling him the story about their courtship and marriage)

"Then Barack's father - your grandfather Hussein- wrote Gramps this long, nasty letter saying that he didn't approve of the marriage. He didn't want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman, he said. Well, you can imagine how Gramps reacted to that. And then there was a problem with your father's first wife... he had told me they were separated, but it was a village wedding, so there was no legal document that could show a divorce..."


if any of you read this you will know of the deep racial hatred that existed in his fathers family. 1000x more so than his mothers. yet he continues to throw his 'white' grandmother under the bus when compared to the wonderful magnificent reverand and long friend.


if any of you read this book, written by obama himself, i'll never see how you could support anybody like this and his current comments as he runs for president.

[Edited on March 29, 2008 at 10:16 AM. Reason : .]

3/29/2008 10:16:14 AM

Quote :

"yet he continues to throw his 'white' grandmother under the bus when compared to the wonderful magnificent reverand and long friend."

Wow, it keeps on shifting. First Obama throws Wright under the bus, now it's his grandmother. No matter what, he's throwing somebody under that damn bus!

It's as if you didn't hear the speech at all. Obama has been more than willing to acknowledge black bias against whites. As I've said before, he's being downright generous to us.

3/29/2008 10:26:16 AM

read the book. you will find 100's of contradictions vs. his current way of speaking.


i really enjoyed his once in a lifetime race speech. it's the best thing i've heard since martin luther king himself and america should recognize it.

3/29/2008 10:33:49 AM

who gives a flying fuck about this anymore. I couldn't give a shit who is 'thrown under the bus' nor what his freaking preacher said.

it's obvious that trinity chruch of christ is just a cover, and that he's too smart to be some devout chrisitan, yet needed it in Chicago to further his political ambitions, and just like now, needs a cover of 'christianity' but I don't for once think he hardly went much less has some big religious belief. Choosing that church bit him on his ass, b/c it was his PR and step up. That's that. Like I said, the man is too smart to believe in that and in office if he makes it, you'll never hear about christianity.

And it has nothing to do with him being an effective president and all of you know it, but we are swarmiing with gossip like a bunch of idiots instead of concentrating on ability to do the job, ideas, leadership, and savvy. Which Barack can offer a shit load there, and that's why all this idiocy and Faux News b.s. hasn't hurt him terribly so as the polls show.

3/29/2008 12:44:04 PM

Quote :

" is just a cover, and that he's too smart to be some devout chrisitan"

welcome to the usa. in god we used to trust.

3/29/2008 1:11:58 PM

Quote :

"i really enjoyed his once in a lifetime race speech. it's the best thing i've heard since martin luther king himself and america should recognize it."

With that in mind, how can you say he threw in grandmother under the bus? He had far more negative to say about Wright than about his grandmother.

What from the book is so objectionable?

3/29/2008 5:09:55 PM

3/29/2008 7:33:11 PM

Quote :

"welcome to the usa. in god we used to trust."

we used to have separation of church and state as well

3/29/2008 7:45:46 PM

Quote :

"i really enjoyed his once in a lifetime race speech. it's the best thing i've heard since martin luther king himself and america should recognize it."

i agree but there are too many dumb uneducated whites in the democratic party

3/29/2008 11:49:28 PM

It's pretty simple, really.

1. other candidates I liked dropped out
2. SCOTUS nominees
3. fiscal responsibility w/ regards to reducing the amt of debt (this being largely due to the handling of Iraq)

McCain wouldn't bother me if he wasn't at times courting the hard right. His SCOTUS nominees would likely be similar to the recent ones.

3/30/2008 11:21:06 PM

Obama leading Clinton 52-42

3/31/2008 7:31:10 AM

Pink,

Well, politicans are politicans. I figure McCain was appearing to give in on a few key right-wing issues to help woo Republicans during the primary. His biggest concessions are almost of no importance. For example, he said that he advocates making the Bush tax cuts permenant, yet with a Democratically controlled congress the possibility that such legislation would ever reach the Presidents desk next year is verrrry unlikely.

I prefer to focus on things McCain has been consistant on through out his career. Things like fiscal responcibility, free trade, campaign finance reform, climate change, etc. I also think he is only candidate serious about iraq.

Obama might also be paying lift-service to the base. I mean, a lot of his proposals are solid redmeat for the far left base--windfall profit taxes on oil companies (yah, that will help the price of gas), "revisiting" NAFTA, etc. The recent episode with Goolsbee makes one wonder. But it's very hard to say. Obama has no real record to speak of. So we have no idea what his core views and values are beyond what he tells us. I think that's why so many people like him. They can project most any viewpoint they want onto him.

3/31/2008 7:58:39 AM

http://www.nysun.com/news/national/some-republicans-emerge-endorse-obama

3/31/2008 8:57:06 AM

socks is a McCain supporter? hahaha

I thought he was just one of those i-wont-vote-types

3/31/2008 12:00:49 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/31/50-cent-no-longer-supports-clinton/

50 Cent has dropped his support of Clinton and is now backing Obama.


I guess that makes my mind up.

3/31/2008 3:30:14 PM

50 endorses obama?



im down.

3/31/2008 3:34:33 PM

Quote :

"Don't look for my vote, for me to determine nothing on that. Just say, '50 Cent, he don't know, so don't ask Fiddy.'"

At least he's not pretending he matters.

3/31/2008 3:35:24 PM

cause he supports raising taxes on the top 2 percent

3/31/2008 3:49:35 PM

man i fucking hate rich people

3/31/2008 5:03:43 PM

you should have said richers it would have been more funny

3/31/2008 5:50:03 PM

recent photo by ZiP in NYC

from http://www.thiscityismine.com

3/31/2008 6:34:35 PM

I support Obama because his Senior Military Adviser has similar thoughts about what we should do in Iraq as John McCain.

Quote :

"The desirability of a similar presence in Iraq was obvious as long as five years ago to retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, one of Barack Obama's leading military advisers and his campaign co-chairman. During the first week of the Iraq war, McPeak (an Iraq war critic) suggested in an interview that "we'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right." (Meaning, if we win.)"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032702616_pf.html

Quote :

"But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: "Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.' " The device? Charge that McCain is calling for a hundred years of war. Hence: • "He says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19). • "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26). • "He's willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17). • "What date between now and the election in November will he drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4). Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it: "John McCain is telling us . . . that we need to win even if it takes 100 years" (March 16). As Lenin is said to have said, "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him," reports David Paul Kuhn of Politico. "

3/31/2008 7:11:01 PM

^

Because we all know that Barack wants this to be a positive campaign about the issues, and not about political spin and misrepresenting quotes.

3/31/2008 7:20:47 PM

^^ What is your point?

I think it's clear McCain was being figurative with the 100 years thing, and it's also clear than the general there didn't mean what you're asserting he means.

3/31/2008 7:29:12 PM

The point is that McCain and the general meant exactly the same thing, but according to Obama and Clinton, McCain wants to continue the war for a hundred years.

3/31/2008 7:37:22 PM

^ Yeah, but the general is not running for pres., Obama is and has always clearly been against the Iraq war, and that statement was made during the first week of the Iraq war.

Also, I don't think McCain and McPeak were saying the same thing.

McPeak seems to have meant a situation like Japan where we're all friends with them, and still have bases there.

McCain was implying we'll keep fighting until we "win" (whatever that means), Vietnam style sans pullout.

In fact, if you actually read the bit in the parentheses after the sentence that you bolded, you'll see the he clearly didn't mean what McCain meant.

3/31/2008 7:50:55 PM

^ Yes, you're right. McCain was not referring to a situation like Japan. He was talking about perpetual fighting.....OH WAIT!!

Quote :

"McCain continued: "We've been in South Korea, we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day." "

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4556230&page=1

SHUT UP, moron!!!!!!

I mean, really. How can you dare have an opinion on something if you're unwilling to do a 10 second google search to check your facts? Jeez.

[Edited on March 31, 2008 at 8:42 PM. Reason : ``]

3/31/2008 8:39:55 PM

I would also like to point out that Obama is FINALLY getting called out by the mainstream media for lying about McCain's position. Obama has said several times that McCain said he wanted to "fight a 100 year war". Of course, as the quote I posted illustrates, this was not what McCain was saying.

Now reporters are finally asking "hey, that isn't what McCain said. Isn't what you're doing just politics as usual"? Ahhh

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105455&page=1

It's just a matter of time before Obama's gold leaf starts falling off. Then we'll be left with talking about policy and there's really only one way that conversation will end.

[Edited on March 31, 2008 at 8:55 PM. Reason : ``]

3/31/2008 8:54:21 PM

I wonder what % of UNC students support either hillary or obama.

Most likely it is a question on the application for admission this year.

3/31/2008 8:57:08 PM

^^ The statement by McPeak is STILL different because he specifies being there "if it works right" and even throws the word "hopefully" in there. He's obviously referring to an expectation of how things would go, after there is no fighting.

It's sad that I have to explain this to you. Your blind love of McCain is clouding your judgement.

And how is it, in McCain's mind, if we're actually fighting al-qaeda where they're training, recruiting, equipping or motivating people that our people aren't going to get hurt? It's clear he said that to pander to that audience, and to be as ambiguous as possible about what he wants to do in Iraq.

I've never found this comment by McCain to be an issue though, and I still don't think it's one, but it's comical how you're trying to portray it like this other guy said the exact same thing.

[Edited on March 31, 2008 at 9:00 PM. Reason : ]

3/31/2008 9:00:41 PM

^ hahah talk about desperatley trying to save face. McCain was obviously talking about a peaceful occupation like in Japan. He said those words explicitly. The ones you said he did not say.

And this is not just how I read them. As I pointed out, this is also how MSM is reading this too. Check out ABC News.

You didn't know fuck what you were talking about. Take it as a lesson and move on. Google before you open your damn trap.

3/31/2008 9:06:46 PM

^ so you still think Mcpeak and McCain were saying the same things?

3/31/2008 9:10:51 PM

I beleive McCain if president would do what was in the best interest of the american people and global community as far as teh issue of Iraq. Not do what is the interest of the halliburton shareholders and oil companies.

3/31/2008 9:19:11 PM

Socks, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

3/31/2008 11:22:29 PM

Quote :

"I prefer to focus on things McCain has been consistant on through out his career. Things like fiscal responcibility, free trade, campaign finance reform, climate change, etc. I also think he is only candidate serious about iraq."

I don't doubt really that either Obama or McCain wouldn't be better with the treasury than the current administration. McCain has his record, and in his time in the Senate, Obama has been clear about his desire for transparency. Thanks to him (and Tom Coburn), government contracts are not secret and thus should be opened to greater scrutiny.

Campaign finance is a shaky issue (so many loopholes, issues of constitutionality, etc). His environmentalism is good (I don't have time to go into my beliefs on that). I'm not too hot on what is currently on the table as far as free trade. Reworking NAFTA is a tricky deal, I don't know what anyone's plan for that would be, but I support any deal that supports equality in access and trade and retained sovreignty. No candidate in the race currently supports my very hard-to-explain postions on the issues that matter most to me (health care, education, environment).

It's interesting to note that there's an article in the American Conservative this month talking about how McCain has apparently made it clear that he didn't necessarily like Alito as a SCOTUS nominee, which is encouraging.

In general, I believe in cyclical governance to keep democracy healthy, and as long as Obama is the man of moral conviction he claims to be, I think it could be his time (as empty as that may sound, heh).

4/1/2008 12:24:19 AM

I just realized I made a mistake...

I mixed up Socks and sputter

4/1/2008 1:37:35 AM

Obama is the man

4/1/2008 12:11:29 PM

where is he in that picture? It looks like Purity Candy.

4/1/2008 12:14:32 PM

His font got serifs goddam.

4/1/2008 12:16:53 PM

^^ Wilbur's

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/tempting-obama-on-the-trail/

4/1/2008 12:19:30 PM

^ Will you stand with me for just one day, terpball, in the name of foolishness?

4/1/2008 12:21:16 PM

sure, whatever you want dude

4/1/2008 12:22:59 PM

^ Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!1

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WIsou0IRIQU

4/1/2008 12:24:07 PM