I could not have said this yesterday, because I didn't know about it. However, it seems that before Obama is a Democrat, he's a "NEW PARTY". He "signed a contract with them" in about 1995. First time I've ever heard of signing a contract with a political party. Sounds more like some kind of "POLITICAL MAFIA". And, even though he's not listed as a member in good standing, how far do you think he would have gotten if it became known that he was affiliated with them?

Last thing I heard on CNN was Obama claiming McCain is taking "CHEAP SHOTS" by bringing it up. But, the proof is there. Obama is about change, all right. I don't think they'll make it legal to bomb the Pentagon, but I shudder to think what direction that change will take.

Hobo, you did browse the thread I posted, didn't you? Did you read the articles? I did not make them up. It seems that the major news media has been GAGGED about that. WHY? For the first time in my life, I"M LOOKING AT A CANDIDATE AS AN ENEMY... For the very first time in my entire life. I can not believe he's gotten this far with that background. I do not know what his "REAL AGENDA" is, but I'm very sure we have not heard it yet. They're DOING exactly what I said WE have to do, quite some years ago. They're playing the game by the established rules, but they're PLAYING TO WIN.

When NJ voted in casino gambling in Atlantic City, I was living in Philadelphia. I was not connected to anyone where there were any records to show it. I was offered $12 million to buy a hotel and put in a casino. Guess who would have put up the money. It was illegal for anyone connected to the Mafia to have any part of it. And, if I had gone along with it, I would most likely be dead, buried, and forgotten by now.


They, themselves, can not try for office. Their record will come up very quickly. So, they've "SCRUBBED" all reference to Obama from their site. But, the records are available from another site that has "ARCHIVED" the information. Go to the thread I started and use the links. Round out your education. Get a degree in your candidate's background. If that's your idea of "LIBERAL", GOD help us all.

I will agree that there are far too many skeletons in Obama's closet, and far too many unanswered questions about his past. A candidate for the highest office in the land should not have to disavow his relationships just to make people feel better about him. If he has relationships like that, then he should be judged accordingly. The fact that it takes radical right wing news sources to bring them up sickens me.

I take it all back, Rev! I LIKE your one or two word posts!! :D:D

Twilight Flyer said:

I thought my last couple of posts were pretty tame. Ahhh... but, I see it was the one three posts back that irked you. Okay.... You've laid out your cards. I will discuss it in a rational manner.... NOT with the same attitude you are showing (we've played that game before, remember?)

See.... this is not a good way to start. Not if you want someone to respect your opinions. So, if it is a given that the division here is between Conservatives and Liberals... or even Republicans and Democrats... you are calling my entire party (and half the citizens of this country) amoral, atheistic, stupid and indecent. All the while pointing a finger at me for "profiling" those of your party. Wow! I think you just proved my point! :rolleyes:

For your information, I don't believe in same-sex marriage either, but I am against "favored tax status" for those who conform to religious tenets.

I'm not happy about abortion (and condemn late term abortions) but I believe it is the woman's choice... not YOURS.... and not our government's! You say you want smaller government and less intrusion, but you want them to have THAT much say, because it is YOUR "religious" belief.

I don't believe in coddling criminals either, but I DO have some doubts about the death penalty in any case where the missing DNA evidence "might" someday be exculpatory. I don't want to kill an innocent man.... so SUE me!

And I don't believe in welfare without "regulation." I supported the welfare to work program.

I never called those who believe as you do "anti-American." You read that wrong in your frenzy. I was saying that Ann Coulter, and HER type, have labeled those of US who disagree with the Conservative agenda as being so. I may be (by association) a lowlife, stupid, atheistic and immoral slug of a citizen.... but, I served under the flag of my country, and I will NOT let anyone call ME "anti-American" without a fight.

But, if I say (the collective) you are the problem, it is because you believe you have the right to force YOUR beliefs on us in the form of laws. Roe v. Wade does not FORCE your daughter to have an abortion, but it relieves MY daughter from being FORCED to do otherwise. What is next? Are you going to FORCE her (or me) to attend Church? To profess a belief in God? I believe they TRIED that during the Inquisition! :rolleyes:

Really? Let's see.... our most basic foundation was relief from RELIGIOUS persecution. It makes no difference that many of them were Christians or Quakers or whatever. The point was the freedom to worship as they chose, and to be free FROM laws that discriminated against those who didn't subscribe to the "religion of the land."

Next, I would say, would be rebellion against taxation without representation. The colonists had little or no representation in the courts of England, yet they were being taxed into poverty to support the crown. The "landed" Gentry were not so troubled.... they were getting "theirs," but the common man was being abused almost to the point of slavery or servitude. They SAW this inequity between themselves and the "rich and favored" class, and rebelled against it.

Another might actually BE the right of land ownership. This was a big sticky in England. So, we came here with the promise that any man could own land. Somewhere along the line, that became less possible for the average man. I'm not sure where, but I think it had to do with the fact that the crown GAVE large tracts of land to the wealthy and privileged, and the commoner had to somehow meet the price if he wanted an acre or two of his own. Of course... then he was taxed right back into the slums of town.

Another was a more equitable rule of LAW. Instead of being accused in back rooms of heretics and all forms of crimes, and judged by the Royal court (instead of their peers) our forefathers wanted a chance to defend themselves against libel and slander. And, if they couldn't AFFORD a lawyer for this purpose, our forefathers agreed they still had a RIGHT to one. But, this had to be paid for by the taxes on our citizens. Just another worthless "entitlement" to some, I suppose.

And, although I could discuss others, let's end with... and never forget.... the freedom of SPEECH! The right to speak out for what one believes EVEN if it is against the government..... or inflames the sensibilities of the privileged class.

[[continued in next post. I KNEW they were going to get me for being too wordy! :D ]]

Actually, Rev, I made sure that my post was all-encompassing. I fully understand that there are agnostic conservatives out there and I count you as one of them. My conservative nature is based on my upbringing and my spiritual beliefs. I'm not sure what yours is based on, but your conservative nature is very similiar to mine. So, whether you believe in God is irrelevant. The fact that your beliefs are rooted in a conservative nature is what is important. In other words, because you are conservative, you're just as much a hateful bastard as I am.

CONTINUED......

Then, by definition or extrapolation, it seems you are FOR the privileged classes, AGAINST the middle class getting a break, and FOR the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war and nation building, religious "litmus tests" for our judges and our laws, and a global economy that sucks out our jobs with cheap labor, and gives little back? Surely not. I'm only kidding! :D

Well, for one... he is an American. But, you wouldn't KNOW it from the vicious attacks on him here and in the press....by those of YOUR party. Why does anyone from my party, running for President, HAVE to do anything to NOT deserve the type of slander he has endured?

I take shots at Bush because he has damn near ruined this country and represents the antithesis of all those freedoms and founding tenets I discussed. I don't recall taking any shots at McCain other than to defray any notion that he "deserves" to be President because he got shot down in a war. Bush 1, JFK, Eisenhower and others were vets and heros in their own right. I just don't believe this is substance enough to warrant my vote. Palin... I was pretty clear on. I have nothing against her as a citizen. I clearly don't believe she is ready for the position, and my "problem" was with those who would have cast their votes THAT DAY if possible for the obvious and INTENDED reasons for which she was selected.... without regard to any substance or lack thereof.

p.s: Obama is not my messiah. I have my doubts about him, too. I just don't like the "tone" of the attacks being made against him. I haven't heard anyone actually discuss any of his proposals in any way that I didn't recognize as being straight out talking points by the GOP. When I stop hearing "soundbites" and instead hear "substance," I may engage on a more rational and intellectual level.

"Don't drive angry!" (my favorite line from Groundhog Day.)

Perhaps, you should stop watching CNN, and I should stop watching FOX!

Um.... excuse me.... did you READ your first paragraph? And are those the same founding fathers that made it abundantly clear in the Constitution, that the legislative body of this great country (or its courts) would make NO laws that respected ONE religion over another, or over none? The same ones that considered only WHITE men were of any importance in this country? And the ones that felt that ALL citizens had the right to a certain pursuit of happiness (i.e: the American dream?)

Hard to tell from your posts, but I'll take you at your word. I don't have anything against YOU either, or my parents who share SOME of your beliefs.... as "I" do. It IS the "ideology" that we both detest, I believe. And it's a shame that our political climate has changed to the point that one's individual beliefs are lost in the 3 letters that follow their names.

My only "enemy" is someone who would try to deny me the rights I believe I have under the Constitution. If those people happen to be stupid, clueless, racist or homophobic.... that is on them. I am not saying, nor do I believe I ever HAVE said, that you are such.

You MAY be close on what DOES divide our country, but we disagree on who's at fault. And, your claim that Obama is "leading" such a division is just pure Bullchit! I really haven't heard EITHER candidate for president say anything of the sort about each other OR the citizens of this country. That's Sarah Palin's job! :D

BTW, Hobo, I never laid the problems of the country at the feet of the democrats. I laid it at the feet of LIBERALS and every party has its share. It's not my fault that your party has a whole lot more of them.

Regarding abortion, I'm not going down that road again. I believe it to be an absolutely barbaric practice, but I also believe it to be a person's choice. I've never been about curtailing people's choices about anything. I just get sick and damn tired of being told I'm intolerant or stupid or hateful because I don't agree with those choices.

We're done here, Hobo. You can continue to drink your Kool-aid and feel good about it. You can do and believe and say whatever the hell you want. I really don't care. You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not even attempting to change yours. I will always stick by my assertion that liberals are and will be the downfall of this country. In time, my words will be proven out. I only have to wait and probably not very long at that.

Nope - you are still being a hypocrite......

And I have seen no proof that "half the citizens of this country" are Democrat. Not unless you are counting the dead voters....

Thanks. I try.:D

I fail to see how. Sure, I tend to lump all Conservatives together when discussing their agenda or need to oppress others, but I give credit where due to those with more open minds. I can't name each and every one of them by name! I have seen LITTLE separation on this board. Almost to the number, they have all said things about Obama, or liberals, or Dems, that are right out of their weekly "devotions."

Quote:

---

And I have seen no proof that "half the citizens of this country" are Democrat. Not unless you are counting the dead voters....

---

Well, the last two elections have been pretty close to 50/50. But, you're right. In 2000, the popular vote indicated MORE than 50% were Dems. :D

I'll stop counting dead voters when the GOP stops cooking the voting machines! ;)

But, just for grins.... since you have the faster computer and love to find stats..... how about finding the "exact" or believed number of voters registered nationwide as GOP vs. DEM? I'm sure it's easy to find.

Wrong again. Only a very small percentage of the US population votes, so your claim holds no water.

Agreed, but that is all we have to go on. Show me some statistic other than (or including) voter registration that would support your claim. If you CAN..... then my contentions about the inefficiency of the electoral college is even stronger.