so the republicans are trying to make a big deal out of the fact that barack obama lived sort of near
to a 60's political radical, bill ayers.
in the late 60's(when obama was EIGHT YEARS OLD)bill ayers was involved in a radical
political group, the weather underground.
now he and obama live sort of near each other.
and that's what the republicans are using to smear obama?
that when obama was 8 years old and living in hawaii with his mom one of his current neighbors
was involved in a radical polical group?
are the republicans that desperate?
to look at the gop candidates:
mccain, on the other hand, was an actual member of The U.S. Council of World Freedom.This group "blamed everything on the Jews," and "even accused Pope John Paul of being a Jew." They also had specific and documented ties to neo-nazi organizations.
so, obama accidentally lives near a 60's radical who was engaged in 60's radicalism when obama was EIGHT YEARS OLD.
mccain, on the other hand, chose to be a member for 4 years of an organization with neo-nazi ties and who blamed the worlds problems on the jews.
oh, and sarah palin and her husband were involved in a group calling for alaskan secession.
isn't that treason?
palin and her husband were members of the alaska independence party, whose founder Joe Vogler told an interviewer: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. ... And I won't be buried under their damn flag."
huh, she's running as pro-american when she and her husband belong to an anti-american organization?
memo to john mccain and sarah palin: don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.
moby
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket
Hannity v. Gibbs
It was funny to see Robert Gibbs throw this argument right back in the face of Neo Con Sean Hannity.
Last weekend, Hannity had a guest on his show that said some dispicable things towards Jews years back. Therefore, using the argument people are using against Obama---Hannity must hate jews because he shared a stage with this guy.
Just look for "Hannity Gibbs" on youtube and you can see the exchange. Quite hilarious.
Hannity v. Gibbs
It was funny to see Robert Gibbs throw this argument right back in the face of Neo Con Sean Hannity.
Last weekend, Hannity had a guest on his show that said some dispicable things towards Jews years back. Therefore, using the argument people are using against Obama---Hannity must hate jews because he shared a stage with this guy.
Just look for "Hannity Gibbs" on youtube and you can see the exchange. Quite hilarious.
Very informative...
Very informative...I didn't know all this...This who was associated with who...cool how you made it stand out in this journal entry...I find it very eery...associations with echoes of the fifties (HUAC, McCarthyism)...making people afraid..paranoid that these associations could mean something more...let the witchhunt begin...oops, I mean the debates begin...i was afraid of this the whole time bush was in office with every action being a limitation to american freedoms, changing the face of the us to other countries. J-
enemies of the state
if the government subverts its own people with policies that are invasive, unconstitutional and treasonous during a time when families are struggling with putting food on the table and paying for heating oil, are we not to examine bill ayers' weather underground in an entirely new and more accurate context?
think about why obama and mccain voted in favor of the massive socialist bailout of private institutions when americans were against it nearly 100 to 1.
when government stops listening to the people, revolutions usually follow, glorious or bloody.
to quote from the weather underground: "you are either with the oppressed or the oppressors".
the u.s. government has a long and extensive history of creating "imaginary enemies" to dupe the american people into supporting their questionable policies in fighting the war against terror, market capitulation, education, poverty, drugs, etc, etc, etc.
to whom does it benefit, we must ask.
who profits from wars?
daddy bush=carlye group
cheney=haliburton
unocal=built oil line across afghan desert which previous taliban rulers did not allow
drugs=interesting that opium production spiked when the northern alliance took over Afghanistan
the state of Israel profits politically from any wars the west engages in against the arab street.
idiot son=kept in the dark but is fed milk and cookies to comply
who profits from market meltdowns?
robber barons=too many to list
treasonous higher-ups in government who wants to destroy the u.s. dollar so they could conveniently introduce the "amero currency" and the north american union (like the border-less eu but with canada and mexico) and consolidate more power and money.
Eisenhower during his incumbency warned of a "military-industrial complex" that runs the country and the world under the cloak of unfettered privacy. and they do not have your best interest in mind if history is any indication.
sacred dignity, I'd like to find out a bit more about this....
.... this piece of your comment -
"....the massive socialist bailout of private institutions when americans were against it nearly 100 to 1."
where did those figures come from?
as I write this, I don't know whether or not the final stage of the voting for or against the bailout has gone through over there yet, but if it hasn't and it doesn't go through, do you not believe that the consequence would be a massive economic meltdown possibly resulting in a world wide depression? I'm not convinced myself that it's true that that would happen... and it wouldn't surprise me if they have been saying that to attempt to scare people into accepting and believing that the bailout is necessary. If it's true that americans were against it nearly 100 to 1, then I'm supposing that many americans must not believe that this bailout is necessary to avoid serious economic collapse, or else they must not believe that it will work to prevent economic collapse if that may well happen anyway.
I know moby thought of it as a "necessary evil" but it's hard for me to believe that the american people would be opposed to a "necessary evil" nearly 100 to 1 if it really was necessary or so likely to be effective in avoiding serious economic collapse.
do those figures come from polls?
bailout...found a
bailout----nbc, wall street journal voters poll...31% yes/ 33% no/ 28% no opinion
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/24/wsjnbc-poll-voters-split-on-bai...
...found a discrepancy here...republicans walked out on talks and ordinary people chatted online worried it would not pass or should not pass...the voting was on which version to approve of the bailout in the senate and house, not whether or not to bailout the banks.
...ps i am not a perfectionist...doesn't change my opinion of the views shared here...J-
100-1
The 100-1 figure, I believe is unscientific or anecdotal. it was primarily based on the voluminous calls and emails from voters to their elected Representive in congress expressing concern and disgust over the reckless bill. The cnbc poll reported an even higher ratio of 300-1.
Every major and independent news outlet cited this poll, from reuters, ap, economist, newsweek, time, washington post, new york times, etc, during the contentious debate.
thanks. on the possibility of economic collapse anyway
thanks sacred dignity.
I still don't know whether or not the bailout has gone ahead over there (though I'll be listening to the news today).
How likely do you think it is that there will be an economic collapse anyway, with or without the bailout?
What have the major and independent news outlets like reuters, ap, economist, newsweek, time, washington post, new york times etc been saying with regards to that? If heaps of news outlets have/had been putting across the point of view that no bailout won't really necessarily lead to a major economic depression (or that a bailout won't necessarily prevent it), then I can understand why so many american citizens were opposed to it. On the other hand, if what moby said in his journal entry about it is true in that no bailout would very likely result in economic depression, then unless there heaps of news outlets are putting across a different picture from that (that also being the one presented by politicians who have been in support of the bailout), I'm having trouble understanding why so many american citizens have been opposed to it... even though it is ethically very questionable. I'd always thought that most U.S citizens like living in an affluent country and would balk at the thought of the U.S economy slipping right back into something like the economy of the 1930s. Do that many U.S citizens really care so much about ethics that (when faced so directly with the truly ugly and precarious nature of global corporate capitalism)... they would rather opt for economic depression? or are the mainstream media outlets over there not really in consunsus about the bailout plan being something that could work to prop up the U.S economy?
I know there are plenty of people around who believe that if the global corporate capitalist economic system is about to fall, then let it crumble, because not everyone is of the opinion that global corporate capitalism is good for the earth or most of humanity anyway. But I did think that most american citizens were still quite into living in a capitalist society.
death to mammon!
despite widespread criticisms against the bailouts from the majority of Americans, economists and think tanks, the bill passed in congress last week with additional money (pork) thrown in to entice a few representatives to vote yes.
in other areas of life, we call this "bribery" or "extortion".
regardless, the economy will collapse because the bailouts do not address the fundamental problem in our monetary system or the federal reserve (private entity owned by international banks) and it doesn't even address the dire circumstances facing the average american family.
moreover, the bailouts make no provisions for over-sight or transparency. treasury paulson and his successor has complete autonomy over the blank check. this blank check is targeted towards failed private institutions and its illiquid or toxic investments.
that stated, market corrections are necessary to reflect economic realities. prices should be allowed to drop to more realistic levels. it spiked due to artificial bubbles, credit expansion and inflationary measures created by the federal reserve during the greenspan/clinton years.
in a free market economy, the government should not intervene in price-fixing. rather, the markets should be allowed to weed out malinvestments before it can re-grow. in contrast, the bailouts will prolong the pain at the expense of american tax dollars.
why anyone still listen to government is beyond comprehension.
Olberman says it
Olberman says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y9dfYZdlxo
Bad Judgment
C'mon, Moby, it was bad judgment for Obama to have anything to do with someone form the Weather Underground. The fact that Obama was 8 years old at the time is no excuse. It's like hanging out with Adolf Eichmann and then saying I wasn't even alive when he was facilitating the mass deportation of Jews to extermination camps. The "I wasn't around then" defense is intellectually bankrupt, as is the "I was only 8 years old" defense. But it doesn't matter now. In the debate, McCain looked like the old man lost in the department store. It's actually painful and sad to watch the old guy. I respect and honor his service to country, but he's not going to be our next president. That's obvious. Be that as it may, Obama still should NEVER have had anything to do with the likes of Bill Ayers.
Political Movie Parody
Check out this political parody using footage from Transformers the movie on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNYSjJ0XIeY
It shows the battle between Obamamus Prime and McCainatron.
that is very pertinent information Moby, worthy of passing on
Moby, you post very pertinent pieces of information sometimes, and the bit about McCain having been involved in an anti-semitic group with documented ties to neo-nazi organizations is really significant. Where did you get that information from? Could you pass it on to some journalists/TV/Radio stations? It would be great if that could be broadcasted in a big way and brought up on those various current affairs programs that run debates about the candidates.
It might also be worth posting the information along with your sources for it in to some people high up in the Democratic Party heirarchy as well, in case they are not already aware of that.
I thought the post you wrote about mccain showing early signs of dementia or alzeimers(?)(might not be the correct spelling I know), was pertinent as well. I didn't have time to comment that day but if it's true (and it may well be), then surely there must be some piece of legislation of something within the constitution over there which protects America from getting a president who is not medically fit for the job. I read somewhere recently that he isn't into releasing his medical record (maybe you wrote that in a blog), but don't presidential candidates there have some sort of a legal obligation to prove that they are fit for it physically and mentally? Maybe it would be worthwhile making some inquiries about this. I even meant to call up an aquaintance of mine in America who is an active member of the democratic party, to ask him. Maybe I'll do that. However, I know not everything that he says is spot on accurate and he isn't therefore the most reliable information source for things. He was the one who told me that Sarah Palin would like to be able to bring in the death sentence for women who have abortions (which turned out to be misinformation).
Are you in contact with anyone who is active within the Democratic Party yourself? Even if you don't, I'm sure that they would be very open to receiving calls from you to get tipped with pertinent little pieces of information like the ones you have just presented here.
horrible or hilarious?
horrible or hilarious?... i'm not sure.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27057346#27057346
my pops, the anti war activist, married a southern Vietnamese woman. according to palin, does that make me a communist?
conscienctious objection!
watcher of soul
It will be interesting...
...to see just how much of this stuff the McBush smear machine will bring up tonite at the debate. Unfortunately, here in Spain I have to stay up until 3 a.m. to watch Obama in all his cool collectedness successfully undercut McBush´s erratic attacks. zzzzz
Ayers is no longer a terrorist...
With knowledge, the attacks can be seen as compliments. Bill Ayers is now a well respected professor of education? at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His main idea is teaching and education are a tool for social justice. Unfortunately, the media never picks up on this...
the weather underground
we can learn and appreciate much from bill ayers and the weather underground if you truly examine the volatile climate of the 1960's. they were considered "radicals" for their time but so was socrates, jesus, dr. king, malcolm x. and ghandi--who were all killed for telling the truth.
i don't condone violence but when the government violently and unconstitutionally restricts basic civil rights afforded to americans by the framers, we must cheerfully resist these "Nuremberg laws" (patriot act) in the fair name of democracy.
habeas corpus is the one constitutional safe-guard against the rise of demagogues, tyrants and dictators. it is now rendered obsolete by the idiot son.
irony, that team senility is accusing individuals, groups or political avante-gardes of fighting for the very ideals they claim to champion: liberty, freedom and basic civil rights.
http://www.washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR200810...
If McCain has even a shred of integrity left [which I'm doubting].. he really needs to put a stop to this. She is a monster.
I'd rather have four more years of GWB than have her [or him!] anywhere near the white house.