teenyboone
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 05:16 am
Butrflynet wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Yes, let's skim over this long list of pertinent facts so no one will notice or look any further:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/statement-analysis-corporation_530315_1.html]


Good grief, the brain cells you wasted on this post.

No matter who is responsible for the these privacy breaches, this is a non-issue.

Obama was not the only "victim." Democrats were not the only "victims."

There is nothing in a passport application that can't be discovered through numerous other legal sources.

Assuming there was a vast right-wing conspiracy associated with this thing, it can't be linked to McCain. As much as you and your friends might like it, Obama is not running against Bush.

Have you ever heard the expression "No harm, no foul?" It applies to Obama as well as Clinton and McCain.

This story has been tagged to Obama alone (while all three candidates had their privacy breached) because only Obama has reason to want a story, any story, to grab the headlines from the Wright flap.

Please give it up.


Yes, I know that all three of them had their files breached.

So what was the purpose of pasting the article linking Obama's advisor to the data breach if the whole thing is a non-issue?

The content of the file is not the issue, it is the unreported-uninvestigated act of unauthorized snooping of prioritized passport data files that is the issue.

Regarding nefarious guilt by long-term associations, the McCain/Bush relationship is just as viable and open to speculation and finger pointing as the Obama/Wright relationship. After all, George W did offer himself as an advisor to McCain too and we already know how good the Bush folk are at snooping into people's files. :wink:


I'm in agreement with you and thanks for all of the information previously posted. The right is always dismissive of anything posted here, dismissive of other opinions and dismissive of the abysmal record of the past 8 years. I wonder if they'll be dismissive when martial law is enacted as I've read, recently:
http://www.hearbydesign.com/2008/02/24/warning-against-fascist-america-martial-law-detention-camps-fema-pastors/
And there's nothing any of us can do to prevent it. See you in the concentration camps! :wink:
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 05:27 am
Quote:
perps are employees of a key Obama supporter


Number one: an informal adviser to the Obama Campaign is one of the owners to a company who has an employee (singular) who looked at the passport information. There are other owners of this company not connected to Obama's Campaign.

Number two; there are is another company whose had two employees who snooped into the passport record, the owner of this company is not connected to Obama's Campaign.

You are misrepresenting the facts of the issue;shouldn't come as a surprise and it don't.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 05:44 am
Butterflynet:

Rather than face the brand of prejudice practiced throughout America' history and the history of Blacks in America, the posters here, who are so rabid against Minister Wright, can't and won't face and admit that they are prejudiced against Obama, in the first place. What I'm reading here, is what I was warned against as a child, growing up Black, in racially segregated New Orleans. I was also taught that not all whites were predjudiced or bad, however this country chose after the Civil War, to turn a blind's eye, to the Jim Crow laws practiced throughout the South.

Before 1964, the nations prisons were 80% white and with passage of 2 civil rights Acts, not laws, just barely 40 years ago, the draconian Rockefeller drug laws and institutionalized racism, have reversed the prison population to 80% Black and drove a new industry, the prison industrialization complex, that has imprisoned over 2 million Blacks, since 1964. The disenfranchisement of Florida's Blacks in the 2000 election, the "fixing" of the voting machines in Ohio in 2004, a conservative Supreme Court deciding a federal election, now high unemployment, poisons in children's toys, plastic in dog food, the price of oil in the US, that is not short on supply, but the fixing of the prices by Bush's Arab honchos and this last statement by Tim Wise is so telling.

"So white folks are mad at Jeremiah Wright because he challenges their views about their country. Meanwhile, those same white folks, and their ministers and priests, every week put forth a false image of the God Jeremiah Wright serves, and yet it is whites who feel we have the right to be offended. "

A white man defending what Blacks and people of color have felt for over 450 years, when we were "stolen" from our native lands and told we had no history, no culture, no language, yet no one speaks with truth, because the light of truth blinds the hell out of the lies told for centuries. Cool 2 Cents
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 06:12 am
revel wrote:
Quote:
perps are employees of a key Obama supporter


Number one: an informal adviser to the Obama Campaign is one of the owners to a company who has an employee (singular) who looked at the passport information. There are other owners of this company not connected to Obama's Campaign.

Number two; there are is another company whose had two employees who snooped into the passport record, the owner of this company is not connected to Obama's Campaign.

You are misrepresenting the facts of the issue;shouldn't come as a surprise and it don't.




Quote:
There are other owners of this company not connected to Obama's Campaign.


I realized after posting this statement that it is wrong (as near as I know right now) I was going by memory of Clyop's post of Marc Armbinder and I think I misunderstood. What he said was this:

Quote:
Turns out that the owner of one of the companies is John Brennan, one of Barack Obama's chief advisers on intelligence policy. (The others are Lee Hamilton and Tony Lake.)


I take it the other owners are owners of the other company. In any case Obama's former compaign adviser is owner of one of the companies who employed the "perps" who breached into Hillary, McCain and Obama's files. So the statement
Quote:
perps are employees of a key Obama supporter
is incorrect so my original point still stands.

Moreover it appears there was a break between John Brennan and Obama over the telecom immunity issue. Brennan supported it and Obama does not.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 06:51 am
revel wrote:
revel wrote:
Quote:
perps are employees of a key Obama supporter


Number one: an informal adviser to the Obama Campaign is one of the owners to a company who has an employee (singular) who looked at the passport information. There are other owners of this company not connected to Obama's Campaign.

Number two; there are is another company whose had two employees who snooped into the passport record, the owner of this company is not connected to Obama's Campaign.

You are misrepresenting the facts of the issue;shouldn't come as a surprise and it don't.





Quote:
There are other owners of this company not connected to Obama's Campaign.


I realized after posting this statement that it is wrong (as near as I know right now) I was going by memory of Clyop's post of Marc Armbinder and I think I misunderstood. What he said was this:

Quote:
Turns out that the owner of one of the companies is John Brennan, one of Barack Obama's chief advisers on intelligence policy. (The others are Lee Hamilton and Tony Lake.)


I take it the other owners are owners of the other company. In any case Obama's former compaign adviser is owner of one of the companies who employed the "perps" who breached into Hillary, McCain and Obama's files. So the statement
Quote:
perps are employees of a key Obama supporter
is incorrect so my original point still stands.

Moreover it appears there was a break between John Brennan and Obama over the telecom immunity issue. Brennan supported it and Obama does not.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/
:wink:
Thank You! :wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:04 am
260 posts in two days!!??

This thread is officially going too fast to possibly keep up with.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:11 am
Ticomaya wrote:

Well, it turns out the company that employs the snoopers is headed by Obama's confidante.


Are you lying or hopelessly uninformed? Only the last Obama breach was perpetrated by the Obama-advisor owned company.

Quote:

What do you mean "unreported-uninvestigated"? Are you saying this matter was not reported? Are you saying it was not investigated? Are you suggesting the security safeguards that appear to have worked were insufficient? Or are you, yourself, trying to claim some nefarious role by the present administration? What exactly are you trying to claim here?



First, you need to explain what you think the nefarious connection is between Obama's advisor and the passport breach. Then you need to learn the meaning of simple words. Unreported means that the breaches were not reported to higher ups, suggesting a possible cover up. Un-investigated means the the breaches have not been investigated by the inspector general or the Justice Department. When this happened to Bill Clinton, Joe DiGenova was appointed Independent Counsel and launched a THREE YEAR investigation.

At this point, there are more questions than answers. Yes, it could turn out to be an innocent breach but, then again, if you look backt to my posts on the matter, there are an awful lot of non-partisans who think something is fishy here.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:11 am
nimh wrote:
260 posts in two days!!??

This thread is officially going too fast to possibly keep up with.


Try coming back to read it after 3 weeks of traveling! Shocked

Not possible.... I'm sooooo lost... Razz
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:42 am
I suspect the reason people vote in presidential elections is because they feel like their participation and support may serve to make their country and their world as they see it, better.

I can only speak for myself, but I have been a supporter of Obama since he announced that he would be seeking the office of POTUS, because I believe and think that he is the best prospect available to put this country on a better track than it has been.

This thread was created by someone asking the question - could he actually be a viable candidate?

The answer to that has been a resounding "Yes!"

Now he is being faced with the biggest challenge to his candidacy yet - Reverend Wright. The polls have shown that the playing and re-playing of the most incendiary that could be found of Reverend Wright's words have had the effect of decreasing the numbers of Obama's support, and decreasing the intensity of the loyalty for him.

But here's the thing...

Those who are the most apoplectic, the most exercised about this Jeremiah Wright thing are not those who have been somehow disenchanted by it- those who would otherwise be stalwart supporters of Obama and who now have had to think again.

It is those WHO WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED FOR OBAMA UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE (represented by the A2Kers bombarding this thread for the last 20 or so pages) who are making the stink.

That's why I think the stink will settle, notwithstanding what Finn and Maporsche say.

Obama might have an excellent chance of going all the way.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:43 am
teenyboone wrote:
Butterflynet:

Rather than face the brand of prejudice practiced throughout America' history and the history of Blacks in America, the posters here, who are so rabid against Minister Wright, can't and won't face and admit that they are prejudiced against Obama, in the first place. What I'm reading here, is what I was warned against as a child, growing up Black, in racially segregated New Orleans. I was also taught that not all whites were predjudiced or bad, however this country chose after the Civil War, to turn a blind's eye, to the Jim Crow laws practiced throughout the South.

Before 1964, the nations prisons were 80% white and with passage of 2 civil rights Acts, not laws, just barely 40 years ago, the draconian Rockefeller drug laws and institutionalized racism, have reversed the prison population to 80% Black and drove a new industry, the prison industrialization complex, that has imprisoned over 2 million Blacks, since 1964. The disenfranchisement of Florida's Blacks in the 2000 election, the "fixing" of the voting machines in Ohio in 2004, a conservative Supreme Court deciding a federal election, now high unemployment, poisons in children's toys, plastic in dog food, the price of oil in the US, that is not short on supply, but the fixing of the prices by Bush's Arab honchos and this last statement by Tim Wise is so telling.

"So white folks are mad at Jeremiah Wright because he challenges their views about their country. Meanwhile, those same white folks, and their ministers and priests, every week put forth a false image of the God Jeremiah Wright serves, and yet it is whites who feel we have the right to be offended. "

A white man defending what Blacks and people of color have felt for over 450 years, when we were "stolen" from our native lands and told we had no history, no culture, no language, yet no one speaks with truth, because the light of truth blinds the hell out of the lies told for centuries. Cool 2 Cents


TeenyBoone, I know you are describing it as you see it, and I respect that. But I think the way you (and some others) see it is part of the problem. Here's why:

One says that the rightwingers on the thread are 'dismissive' of anything defending Jeremiah Right or Barack Obama; yet that same person and those who agree with her ignore the accusations of bias, prejudice, dishonesty, etc. etc. etc. directed at opposing points of view. The rebuttals are often angry or dismissive and/or insulting. A little ability to see that both sides hold strong, if differing, views and have valid reasons for holding them could go a long way toward finding what common ground exists. (I hasten to say that ALL members, Left or Right, are not insulting or dismissive and some do seem to be making at least an effort to understand the point of view of the others.)

You say
Quote:
the posters here, who are so rabid against Minister Wright, can't and won't face and admit that they are prejudiced against Obama, in the first place.


I think any American who loves his/her country and who is capable of seeing the whole history that includes some really good stuff as well as bad stuff will oppose the message of Jeremiah Wright, and that includes a lot of Obama supporters. Racial dynamics in America can and should certainly continue to improve, but neither America nor the average white person, rich or not, deserves the condemnation that Wright heaps upon it. His message is angry and divisive and prejudicial and promotes the very attitudes that we need to get past in order to move forward.

Some here will be supporting Hillary because they believe she is the better candidate. The conservatives will be supporting McCain or 'none of the above' because they can't stand Hillary and/or know Obama to be so far left in his ideology that he will certainly push a socialist agenda that we cannot support. Those of you supporting Obama may be doing so because he appeals to you as a person or because you like what he says or because he seems better than Hillary or because you wouldn't vote for a Republican no matter who he or she was.

Prejudice comes into play for sure, but I am reasonably certain that what prejudice exists in the dynamics is ideological and not racial.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:51 am
teenyboone is right and Foxfyre is a prime example of people who don't 't get it due to their inability to see past their prejudice.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:54 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
teenyboone is right and Foxfyre is a prime example of people who don't 't get it due to their inability to see past their prejudice.


And so it is written......
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:54 am
foxfyre wrote:
know Obama to be so far left in his ideology that he will certainly push a socialist agenda


foxfyre wrote:
Prejudice comes into play for sure, but I am reasonably certain that what prejudice exists in the dynamics is ideological and not racial.

absolute crap or absolute ignorance/
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:56 am
I rest my case and thank the opposition for affirming it.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:57 am
Is Obama NOT far left?

Did he NOT have the most liberal voting record in 2007?

Does he not support the banning of ALL semi-automatic weapons?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:58 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I rest my case and thank the opposition for affirming it.
generally speaking one as to make a case before one can rest it.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:59 am
It is outrageous to characterize what Revereand Wright said in those sound bites as "his message." Anyone who understands, or attempts to understand the black experience in America, would understand (but not condone) why an African-American might go off the deep end like that occasionally. But the bigots do not want to understand. They want to have an excuse for their bigotry.

BTW at least Foxfyre is an equal opportunity hater, she hates gays too.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 09:04 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
Anyone who understands, or attempts to understand the black experience in America, would understand (but not condone) why an African-American might go off the deep end like that occasionally. But the bigots do not want to understand. They want to have an excuse for their bigotry.


You are simply making excuses for this man. This Reverend Wright IS A BIGOT. I understand that he went off the deep end when he said those things, but the things he said HE BELIEVES.

I don't blame Wright's for his bigotry, he's experienced some things that I couldn't even imagine. But to claim that he is NOT a bigot is simply WRONG.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 09:04 am
maporsche wrote:
Is Obama NOT far left?

Did he NOT have the most liberal voting record in 2007?

Does he not support the banning of ALL semi-automatic weapons?

According to whom exactly? Oh yes, the extreme right National Review. Got it.

Regardless, A US Senator's voting record does not define him or her. Have you read his book? Most assuredly you have not. Only someone on the extreme right, or someone incredibly stupid, would accuse Obama of being far left.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 09:06 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Is Obama NOT far left?

Did he NOT have the most liberal voting record in 2007?

Does he not support the banning of ALL semi-automatic weapons?

According to whom exactly? Oh yes, the extreme right National Review. Got it.

Regardless, A US Senator's voting record does not define him or her. Have you read his book? Most assuredly you have not. Only someone on the extreme right, or someone incredibly stupid, would accuse Obama of being far left.


Action's speak louder than words Roxxxanne.

Obama's ACTIONs are as far left as the left go in this country. I'm not saying he's a socialist (nobody in American politics is as far as I know), but he is as left as the left gets in the USA.

I suppose I'm just incredibly stupid.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 672
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.45 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 10:30:32