The Audacity of Lies
March 31st, 2008 at 10:13pm Matt Margolis
Looks like more dishonesty from Barack Obama has been uncovered…
During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion — positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign.
The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.
Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.
They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.”
But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.
Pathetic. Obama is trying to cover up just how radical and out-of-the-mainstream he really is.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Corruption, Democrats
70 Comments
1. js | March 31st, 2008 at 10:18 pm
just like billy boy clinton, lies, lies lies…
its no wonder the DNC picked a patholigical liar twice in two decades, the liberal stream of social experimentation flows strong from people like Obama, whose lemmings would have us believe that he is some kind of savior for america
2. jerry | March 31st, 2008 at 11:07 pm
As an Obama supporter this is disappointing. He is doing what many politicians do when they run for national office, they try to tone down the harsh edges. I am not excusing it and it will be and should used against him in the general. Though I don’t think it will hurt regarding the actual issues it will be used to attack his integrity. What are his core beliefs? I think it is a blip now but will be used very effectively by the GOP when he is the nominee.
3. Rana Quijotesca | March 31st, 2008 at 11:13 pm
… so he’s conforming to political theory?
Honestly… it’s not anymore dishonest than McCain speaking at Falwell’s Liberty University after calling the late preacher an “agent of hatred” (or some such insult).
He’s a politician… and they rush to the center for the election… it’s an empirically proven political fact…
4. js | March 31st, 2008 at 11:32 pm
lol, if a republican candidate is caught in as many lies as obama has, you all would be ready to put out a contract on him
there is not excuse, it doesnt matter if they are conservative or liberal, how can the DNC expect to keep fooling america by presenting us with liar after liar
the ole, “oh its a natural political thing” just doesnt cut it anymore
we dont teach our kids to lie to get along in life, why should we accept it from a politician!!
5. Jeremiah | March 31st, 2008 at 11:34 pm
He’s a politician…
Rana,
Yes, and a very slick one!
and they rush to the center for the election… it’s an empirically proven political fact…
Obama isn’t running to the center, he’s practicing the norm of his party affiliation, which is? Lying!
–Jeremiah–
6. Jeremiah | March 31st, 2008 at 11:36 pm
He’s a pro-murder fanatic….The man is Dangerous!!!
http://bconservativesunitedb.blogspot.com/2008/03/man-is-dangerous.html
Keep him as far away from the White House as you can!!!!!!
–Jeremiah–
7. Rich | March 31st, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Liar liar pants on fire…
8. Dennis | April 1st, 2008 at 1:08 am
Deleted - off topic.
9. Arctic Fox | April 1st, 2008 at 1:09 am
I do think it’s interesting how many right wing blogs quote right wing talking points and right wing sites and claim that it’s news.
Visit the Politico, the “source” for this story, and click on the ONLY story there about McCain, and it’s clear from the tone of that article, that this site is a Right Wing Talking Point site. Which makes its comments on Obama, frankly, dubious in their reliability since by definition he’s an “enemy” candidate.
Of course, there’s an excuse for this. The “MSM” are supposedly so taken with Obama that they aren’t publishing negative stories. So hey, lets quote a few “unnamed officials” and make something up. Then we can make it seem like a news story on Blogsforhat(r)ed and try and use it to bash the left.
Show me some non-rightwing talkingpoint site justification for these dishonestly claims. Then we can debate them as accurate.
10. Dennis | April 1st, 2008 at 1:19 am
Deleted - off topic. Ed. Note wonders if you were even remotely paying attention when we re-stated the comment policy?
11. Dennis | April 1st, 2008 at 2:09 am
Deleted - still off topic. Ed. Note wonders if you always have this much difficulty with simple instructions. To review - there is a topic on this thread. Say whatever you want on the topic. Don’t speak to other topics, as that just confuses the issue here discussed.
12. Freedom1 | April 1st, 2008 at 3:14 am
At Fox News’ GretaWire.com she poses this question:
“What do you think about Senator Obama’s explanation for the 1996 questionnaire?”
Candid 6% (915 votes)
Deceitful 92% (14458 votes)
Not sure 2% (295 votes)
Total Votes: 15668
_________________________
Hahahaha! Obama’s lies are catching up to him and the US voting public is wise to Obama’s deception.
13. Plantation Owner | April 1st, 2008 at 6:17 am
From Obama for Duce?
SteaM says:
“So who do you trust to protect the Constitution more than someone who used to teach it?”
Apparently his fantasy doesn’t match Obama’s reality.
It is so easy to blame the campaign aides. Like Clinton, the lesser “peoples” of his staff will make sure that no blame will reach Obama.
With Truman, “The buck stops here”.
With today’s liberals, “The buck never gets here.”
14. hermie | April 1st, 2008 at 7:24 am
Which goes to show you that Obama has no real positions he truly believes in. As for ‘toning down’ harsh edges, if these positions are supposed to be his real beliefs, why ‘tone them down’? Isn’t that acting like a partisan politician?
Doesn’t that make his claims of being ‘bipartisan’ and for ‘change’ just more lies?
15. js | April 1st, 2008 at 7:42 am
obama has positions, you just have to be able to recognize them.
he is rabildy against guns, he endosed allowing a 14 year old child cross state lines with her boyfriend for an abortion, he upholds the fantasy that deviant sexual behavior is a right guaranteed under the Constitution, he believes in Islamic insurrection because he upholds his families struggle in Kenya, but he does not believe in democracy and freedom because he has radically opposed a free and democratic Iraq.
Its not hard, just look around.
16. Joe | April 1st, 2008 at 8:44 am
js, classic…
he believes in Islamic insurrection because he upholds his families struggle in Kenya
and
he does not believe in democracy and freedom because he has radically opposed a free and democratic Iraq.
You are too funny. Care to prove those last two?
The gun comment… hey, if you want to claim that he is “rabidly against guns” when he is against semi-automatic weapons, so be it. The topic of the thread is his stance on guns.
The 14-yr old going across state lines? I suppose you claim this because he is not hard-core anti-abortion??
But the two I quoted above….. you REALLY love to sling crap against the wall. Do tell us how you know he is for Islamic insurrection and is opposed to a democratic Iraq (and don’t say because he wants to pull the troops out, that would be foolish).
17. Diane Tomlinson | April 1st, 2008 at 8:47 am
I still don’t get what you guys need all those guns for anyway. If you get shot up aren’t you like martyred to Paradise for the harps and honey for Eternity thing? How many more school shootings do you need to see that guns are equalizers only for the violent and the disturbed? Please!
18. Diane Tomlinson | April 1st, 2008 at 8:49 am
Hey Joe,
Why didn’t js just scream at the end AND HE’S BLACK!!!!
We know what this is all about and I hope America gets the President they deserve.
19. Pain | April 1st, 2008 at 8:49 am
We can assure you that America will definitely get what it deserves.
20. kimberly4victory | April 1st, 2008 at 9:34 am
Sadly, Jerry is the ONLY liberal intelligent enough to see that Obama did indeed lie and then tried to cover it up. All others defend him or rush to change the subject. Good on you, Jerry.
Artic is right, Mark. How dare you talk about Obama! This blog should be more like the left wing sites and ignore his bad qualities. LOL.
I suggest we all ignore DianE. It’s not healthy to feed the trolls.
21. Joe | April 1st, 2008 at 9:44 am
Are you people more pissed that he had more of a say in things than were lead on to. Calling him a liar.
Or are you more pissed that he had a more liberal stand 13 yrs ago than he is talking about now?
Claiming he changed his position
Or are you more pissed that he had taken stands to “take away your guns”?
Saying he is a meanie liberal that wants your guns.
Which of those 3 are you complaining about? Because all 3 are about as foolish as getting all huffy over his pastor’s comments.
22. kimberly4victory | April 1st, 2008 at 9:50 am
Joe, Joe, Joe …
Obama said he never heard any of the racist, anti-American remarks from Wright. Later on, he said, “Yes, I did.”
Obama, through his aides, said he never saw or approved the questionnaire, but his handwriting says he did.
That’s what is so upsetting. It’s becoming a pattern.
23. kimberly4victory | April 1st, 2008 at 9:52 am
I suggest Obama take a good look through his closet, examine all of his skeletons, and get his talking points prepared before the general election.
24. TiredofLibBullShit | April 1st, 2008 at 9:55 am
“I still don’t get what you guys need all those guns for anyway. If you get shot up aren’t you like martyred to Paradise for the harps and honey for Eternity thing? How many more school shootings do you need to see that guns are equalizers only for the violent and the disturbed? Please!”
Uh, Diane, it is already illegal to bring guns within 1500 of a school campus. There are already gun bans in many major cities, with high crime rates - look at DC. But in both cases, guns are still used. Don’t these criminals and deranged people know that they should not have these guns in these areas?!?
Astonishing that criminals and the deranged don’t follow the rule of law. The only thing that gun laws do is create victims that are preyed upon by criminals - fact, inarguable. A criminal is more likely to commit a crime in a area he/she knows is free from guns, than risk his/her own neck where guns are allowed. Statistics prove that areas that have passed concealled/carry laws, crime rates have dropped - fact, inarguable.
PLEASE! indeed.
25. TiredofLibBullShit | April 1st, 2008 at 9:58 am
Joe doesn’t understand and is incapable of understanding patterns.
To him, this is just an unfair attack by a vast right wing conspiracy.
He has put all his hopes into one person and cannot stand the fact that his guy is imploding. He can’t deal with the situation emotionally and intellectually.
26. hermie | April 1st, 2008 at 10:45 am
The Left embraced the Clintons in the 90’s and defended them until the Great Obamarama, the newest darling and Democrat empty suit showed up.
Then Bill and Hillary became targets of the MSM who were no getting thrills up their legs whenever BHO spoke about nothing. Stories which the NYT and WaPo would’ve spiked without a second’s hesitation (Old News! VRWC!) were now appearing daily.
To the Left, it doesn’t matter what Obama says, it’s how he says it that thrills them; and no lie or contradiction he spouts will ever deter them in their adoration..
Until the next ’star’ shows up…
27. Joe | April 1st, 2008 at 10:47 am
Tired, thanks for telling me what I can and can not do and what I think and understand. Damn you are amazing to know all that about me.
By the way… you forgot your trademark USEFUL IDIOT comment.
I just find it funny the things you people concern yourselves with. Oh my… he claimed he didn’t have liberal views, but he did! Good grief, he should end his campaign and resign from the Senate!!! Oh my!
Are there really things that John McCain, for example, has not been completly truthful about? This is not changing the subject or deflecting. This is bringing up hypocritical thinking that you possess. Remember… I don’t work with lobbyists, yet it turns out that lobbyists are in very high levels of his campaing?
There are numbers of things for everyone that has ever run for office where you can find things like this. We should all be pissed at all candidates that do this and not just the ones that have a “D” or an “R” after their name.
28. Joe | April 1st, 2008 at 10:51 am
hermie, your comment #26 doesn’t really say anything but that Obama is an “empty suit”.
If you want to debate his platform, do so. To claim he is an “empty suit” would mean that he has no plans or ideas. Meanwhile, back in reality have you even researched his plans?
Just because you don’t LIKE his plans doesn’t mean he doesn’t have them. Just because you don’t agree with him doesn’t mean that he has no platform.
According to your calculations… I guess I can claim that Bush and McCain are the biggest empty suits ever.
29. Tractatus | April 1st, 2008 at 11:06 am
Obama said he never heard any of the racist, anti-American remarks from Wright. Later on, he said, “Yes, I did.”
Kim, Kim, Kim–
Obama was asked if he was in the church on the specific day when Wright made his right-wing catnip remarks (the “god bless America? god damn America” ones). And Obama said he wasn’t. Which is true. Obama was later asked a much broader question, if he had ever heard any controversial remarks from Wright, and he said that he had. Which, again, is true. Yet wingers have trouble parsing all this for some strange reason….
Looks like we’ve found the “Al Gore says he invented the internet!” of 2008. Sure, it’s not true, but wingers sure know how to catapult the propaganda.
30. Almiranta | April 1st, 2008 at 11:12 am
When SteaM said “So who do you trust to protect the Constitution more than someone who used to teach it?” he brings up an excellent point.
I would be interested to see just HOW Obama taught the Constitution—the way it is written, or the way he has voted and laid out his campaign platform? Because there is a vast chasm between the two.
As I have been saying, if Obama would stand up and say “I am a Liberal and I am proud of it, I espouse extremely Liberal points of view and I am proud of them, I represent the most far-Left in our society and I am proud of that…” I would at least respect him.
I would still think he would make a terrible President, but at least he would be an honest man running an honest campaign, instead of trying to hide his Liberal credentials while at the same time trying to walk the tightrope of appeasing his far left base and not scaring off the moderates he will need to get anywhwere.
31. Aaron | April 1st, 2008 at 11:37 am
zzzzzzzzzzzz
If this is the best you toadies can come up with, then I’d have to say Obama is just about the most honest politician in the land.
32. Some Assembly Required | April 1st, 2008 at 11:58 am
Candidates evolve politically throughout the course of their careers. Which is essentially what Obama has done and you call it lies.
Obama said NO first to the question whether minors should be required to get parental consent before having an abortion.
Later he elaborates that ‘younger’ children should require parental consent (ie. 12 or 13 years old).
This is not a lie. He is acknowledging that the issue is more complicated than a simple yes or no response in his ‘amended’ questionnaire.
As you ‘right wingers’ are so quick reverse the point of view if the story does not go along with your worldview I ask you to do the same.
What if McCain had answered these questionnaires in a similar fashion? Would you still be calling him a liar? Would his changing positions on waterboarding be constituted as a lie? How about his misspeaking in Jordan? Or would you spin it that campaigns evolve over time and this is just a further sign of McCain’s experience over the other candidates.
In raising these questions about Obama you force the same upon the other candidates. Keep doing it. The hopelessness and desperation of the republican party this election is comical. I am really just waiting for you to brand Obama a Flip-Flopper while maintaining unwavering support for McCain. It really is coming to the point where even a six year old can see the hypocrisy
33. TiredofLibBullShit | April 1st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Joe,
you make it so easy to see your limitations and advertise your useful idiot status with every post. Why point out the obvious, now?
BTW, words have meaning. So when a politician says one thing one day and later it comes out that it is false….
for a liberal, he/she mispoke - no big deal.
for anyone else, he/she is held to his/her prior comments, is a liar, is a great cause for concern.
Thanks for pointing out again your blatant hypocrisy. We are only holding Obama to the standards set up by your fellow liberals that are applied to non-liberal types.
Question, why is Obama afraid of his liberal status? In fact, why are all liberals afraid of being liberal??
34. SteaM | April 1st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Here’s his campaign statement:
Bottom line is, will the voters care about this or not?
For me? This doesn’t change my vote.
35. Diane Tomlinson | April 1st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
24. TiredofLibBullShit | April 1st, 2008 at 9:55 am
Astonishing that criminals and the deranged don’t follow the rule of law. The only thing that gun laws do is create victims that are preyed upon by criminals - fact, inarguable.
Sorry i wasn’t clear, but I just don’t think people need AK 47 assault rifles to protect themselves. I’m all for a “well regulated militia” especially with the neocons in the White House and people that I care about living in the USA. I don’t think it’s possible for a law to be passed that would take all the guns from the American people but there do need to be controls over what sort of fire power a guy who decides the world is evil and he has to start shooting the office up because a voice from the Almighty told him to.
“Inarguable?” I’m trying to think of a topic with two sides that is inarguable. Remember Valerie Plame? How many of you guys were calling her a secretary and saying that was inarguable? Now imagine if a Liberal lesbian like me were to say something like that about a covert agent that had been outed by the number two at State when Albright had been there would that seem “inarguable’ that such a line of thinking would have been wrong? No, of course it’s not, in my opinion. You have a right to your opinion right or wrong even if it is proved wrong and you go on blind faith because in your mind you have to be right, but you have no firm ground to stand on when you tell people that there is no room to argue. Why because YOU say so? Balderdash!
That seems like a close minded sort of way to think about things but that’s what i expect from church indoctrinated conservative sheep. I must have skipped a seminar because I question things so much that I cannot even read the Daily Kos without getting sick to my stomach. That’s right sports fans I can’t stand the Kos Kids because they are just a mirror image of you guys. What I’d like to do is get some of you Living folk to think for themselves, for once instead of taking what your priest, Mark, Matt , Rush Bush or anyone says you should think.
Obama’s a politician and he has evolving views just like anyone else. Look at Mitt Romney look at McCain about Falwell and the Religious Right which he loathes but needs to get elected. What are we talking about here folks? It’s Politics, nothing more.
36. hermie | April 1st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Obama’s ‘evolving’ views happen pretty quickly and very stealthfully…Much like his memory of the events and people in his life.
37. David B. Schmidt | April 1st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Diane,
Unlike conventional firearms, each change of
possession or ownership of a Title 2 weapon (silencer, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun, pengun, etc.) must be approved in advance by BATF. This includes not only the sale of such a weapon, but also the act of giving or loaning it to another person. These requirements were instituted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and were incorporated into the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Since I am not a Class 3 firearms dealer…these “assault weapons” you speak of are window dressing on a standard semi-automatic which Sen. Obama wants to outlaw. This is from his previous statements as Il Senator as well as posted at his website. Not very Constitutional of him is it. While he is at it–no hand guns either.
Actually, all you folks who state that he “isn’t going to take your guns away” should read and understand his stated positions. Yes, outlawing a weapon or class of weapons is the same as “taking them away.”
Then Joe & SAR chime in with variations on
and I finally see the light. 12 & 13 year-old children should inform their parents but 14-year old “adults” can do whatever floats their boat… hmm, interesting. Since when is 14 the legal age of consent for anything?
38. Pain | April 1st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
We, Ourselves have a response to all those who feel that Barack Obama, a politician of expanding opinions, and an excellent rhetoritician, is anything other than an American who wishes to see his homeland as an united nation-state, as Reverend King did, moving forward into the bright future of the 21st Century.
Truth in Context.
39. Joe | April 1st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Schmidt:
Actually, all you folks who state that he “isn’t going to take your guns away” should read and understand his stated positions. Yes, outlawing a weapon or class of weapons is the same as “taking them away.”
That is right. He is NOT taking anything away. There is a thing called the Congress. They wouldn’t allow it to happen. That is the nice thing of living in a Democracy… the President can not, by himself, remove your right to own any gun you want.
Just like when Bush was elected and he was strongly against abortion. Nothing was going to get done on that and you had BOTH the Congress and the White House. Too much of a wedge issue for either side to do anything about it.
So I restate……. He ain’t taking away your damn guns, so don’t fear. Move on to actual issues that may affect you….. like healthcare or the economy.
40. Sunny | April 1st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Jeremiah | March 31st, 2008 at 11:36 pm
He’s a pro-murder fanatic….The man is Dangerous!!!
Honestly, people like Jeremiah scare me just as much as the radical Islamists. He is as radical as they are. His heart is filled with hate - I picture him as a skinhead.
41. TiredofLibBullShit | April 1st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Joe,
again you show your limitations in understanding.
“There is a thing called the Congress. They wouldn’t allow it to happen. That is the nice thing of living in a Democracy… the President can not, by himself, remove your right to own any gun you want.”
So, the Brady Law was just fiction? I can own any gun I want? Wow, tell me where I can buy a BAR or a Thompson!!!
Secondly, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a Republic. You will not find the word democracy in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution nor any State Constitution. There is a distinct difference between the two forms of government.
I’ll leave it to you to researcg them. You may learn something, if you have trouble ask a 5th grader.
42. Diane Tomlinson | April 1st, 2008 at 5:13 pm
41. TiredofLibBullSh** | April 1st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
So, the Brady Law was just fiction? I can own any gun I want? Wow, tell me where I can buy a BAR or a Thompson!!!
GunsAmerica if you have the cash and are willing to go through this process to purchase a Class III weapon.
43. js | April 1st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
wow
so much for intelligent debate
joe, DT, steam, aaron, the same stooges mixing the BS yet not one of them have posted anything that has any real significance
lip service to an idol, worship of stone by stone
its a mental state
44. Jeremiah | April 1st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Sunny,
If I’m all you’ve got to be scared of, then you’ve got problems.
Obama’s the one you need to be afraid of.
I fear the worst if he becomes President.
I pay my debts, but Obama may be the last and dearest debt I ever paid…and for many others as well.
God help the USA … we’re gonna suffer.
–Jeremiah–
45. David B. Schmidt | April 1st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Actually, my point was two-fold but nonetheless an executive order could outlaw all guns–at least the legal ones.
My point was there are laws on the books and gun control has proven not to be effective time and time again as concealed carry permits have repeatedly resulted in lower crime rates.
The second point was that Senator Obama has shown his anti-second amendment stances and his attempts to blatantly undermine that amendment over time which goes towards proof that he is not a very good Constitutional instructor (lacking knowledge?) or believer–not strictly anyway.
Is there a new way to teach then? Not what is written and to be interpreted but to be circumvented and rewritten by activists. Wait, that is correct-he is a liberal.
As a final note–a class 3 firearms license requirement is a government imposed restriction (and a needed one.) Bet some here wouldn’t like it if the same was required to get full access to the first amendment rights. Or even something simpler like 2-years of honorable military service / peace corps service overseas before spouting off.
46. TiredofLibBullSh** | April 2nd, 2008 at 8:57 am
WOULD YOU CALL THIS AN OBAMA LIE?
Barack Obama is running an ad in Pennsylvania designed to play on the voter’s general dissatisfaction with the oil companies. He mentions Exxon’s profits but does not mention the profit margin. Then he says “I don’t take money from oil companies …. ”
OK .. so that’s not a direct lie. He’s right. He doesn’t take money from oil companies. Either does John McCain. Either does Hillary Clinton. Ditto for all candidates for the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. And why not? Well, Obama hasn’t taken any contributions from oil companies because since 1907 it has been illegal for any corporation to make a direct contribution to a federal candidate. So .. let’s call BFD on this campaign ad claim.
But wait! There’s more! And you’re going to get this without paying shipping and handling. Here are two goodies from Factcheck.org:
Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
Two of Obama’s bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.
Ah ha! A bit of deception there, wouldn’t you say? Obama doesn’t take money from the oil companies. That would be illegal. But if the top oil company executives want to round up some contributions from friends and employees …well that’s just fine.
How about this?
Obama keeps claiming that McCain said he would keep troops in Iraq for 100 years. That is another bold faced lie - McCain never said it and the median is calling it so.
47. Joe | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:09 am
Tired,
McCain said he wouldn’t mind having troops in Iraq for 100 years if they were safe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUE-QmH-n4Q
Spin it all you want, but that is what he said.
While you watch that YouTube piece, also notice that McCain said even knowing what he knows now, he would STILL have gone into Iraq!!! Wow.
Regarding Obama’s oil money, I haven’t looked into it yet. The McCain 100 yrs thing was too easy.
Go on…… call me your trademark USEFUL IDIOT.
This whole thing of “gotcha” posts is ridiculous. What ever happened to the actual issues that affect people?
48. Joe | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:11 am
Schmidt,
Sorry that everyone took my post literally there. I understand you can’t get ANY gun you want. My point was that you can keep your guns.
Everyone on this site tries parsing out every freaking word people say to blast you.
49. FoolYouTwice | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 am
Maybe you could go into some detail on Obama’s attempts to blatantly undermine the second amendment. You sound like you must be a constitutional expert with that kind of opinion. What is your background in constitutional law?
Maybe you could explain the exact words in the second amendment that gives the right to hold and bear arms to individuals.
Do you believe that any type of arm should be available to the individual? Is there even one you can think of that individuals should not be able to hold and bear?
If you can think of one, then you have to admit that the second amendment doesn’t protect the right to hold any type of arm, and therefore disagreements on what types of arms should be legal does not make a view unconstitutional in anyway.
50. TiredofLibBullSh** | April 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
Joe is English your 5th language? Your quote and mine have two distinct meanings. Now repeat slowly:
“I will keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.”
“I don’t mind having troops in Iraq for 100 years if they were safe.”
One statement is definitive and the other is supposition. If you are still confused, go ask a 5th grader.
A person incapable of sticking to the truth to act as president is an issue that affects people! Obviously, you did not learn this with the last Democrat administration.
Again, why call you a useful idiot when it is so obvious? You keep reminding everyone of that fact with every click of your mouse. However, with your latest posts in the last few days, you are moving to USELESS IDIOT.
51. TiredofLibBullSh** | April 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
“Sorry that everyone took my post literally there. I understand you can’t get ANY gun you want. My point was that you can keep your guns.”
So what is it Joe, you mispoke? If you did not mean what you wrote, then why write it to begin with?
Just like your candidate you have trouble with the meaning of words, phrases and clauses.
“Everyone on this site tries parsing out every freaking word people say to blast you.” - said the pot to the kettle. Ever inching so much closer to useless.
52. Joe | April 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 am
Hmmm…. You aren’t bitter or anything, are you Tired?
You have the balls to talk about my English after what you posted in #46? Umm… that should be “NEITHER” not “EITHER”. I can get a 5th grader to teach you English if you want.
Back to the 100 yrs comment… He said he wouldn’t mind keeping troops there for 100 years if they are safe. He also said he will keep troops there until we “win”. So that means if it takes 100 years to “win”, he will do it.
So to claim that the Dems saying he wouldn’t mind keeping them there for 100 yrs is a “bold faced lie”…… is quite foolish on your part.
Maybe we should start calling you a USELESS FOOL.
53. Almiranta | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
Joe says: “Everyone on this site tries parsing out every freaking word people say to blast you..”
Joe, what we are TRYING to do is point out that your words are wrong. You can call this “parsing” if you like, but that is nothing but yet another in a long line of weasel words designed to muddy the waters.
And, sweetie, if you think your pathetic regurgitations of Leftist cant are “blasting” us, you have a seriously distorted view of your importance and effect. What you seem to think of as “blasting” is really more like moderately annoying, though I am sure it is satisfying for a gnat to see himself as an eagle. But “blasting”?—–not hardly.
The 2nd Amendment has no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership, but merely says it is a constitutional right. Yet there are restrictions on gun ownership. Yes or no? Parsing? Hardly.
You guys are sooooo impressed that Obama taught constitutional law, yet you seem unfazed by the fact that he doesn’t seem to understand it.
You love to dump your silly leftist rhetoric on us here, yet all you do is illustrate, repeatedly and incessantly, your total ignorance of facts or your indifference to facts or, more likely, both.
So you can snipe and snarl and whine and whimper all you want—after all, it’s what makes you a rabid Lefty–but you can’t change the fact that McCain has a very real and practical understanding of war in the 20th and 21st centuries and also a grasp of history, and HE understands the value of keeping a presence in countries after the conflict is over. And you don’t. what a surprise.
Then you bleat: “What ever happened to the actual issues that affect people?”
Duh, that’s what we keep TRYING to talk about, but we are always having to step over the droppings of you Lefties who insist on turning everything into a rant about “neocons” and “tribes” and Bush and Rove and so on, ad nauseum. The hyper-emotional emoting of you radicals is what clutters the site and gets in the way of talking about ISSUES.
And before you get your panties in an even bigger twist, look up the source of the term “Useful Idiots”. There is a historical reference which is very appropriate here, and if you really do take the time to actually learn something, and if you really have the ability to process the information you find, you might have a better understanding of how you and your kind fit into a historical perspective.
I’ll bet you have no idea of the origin of the term “fellow travellers” either. But then those with a historical perspective have a hard time justifying leftist positions.
54. Joe | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
Almiratna (sweetie),
Then you bleat: “What ever happened to the actual issues that affect people?”
Duh, that’s what we keep TRYING to talk about, but we are always having to step over the droppings of you Lefties who insist on turning everything into a rant about “neocons” and “tribes” and Bush and Rove and so on, ad nauseum. The hyper-emotional emoting of you radicals is what clutters the site and gets in the way of talking about ISSUES.
Is that why you guys spent 2 weeks on Obama’s preacher?
55. FoolYouTwice | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Do you actually understand what the 2nd amendment says at all Almiranta? The second amendment does not discuss guns directly, but rather arms. Are there any arms you believe should be restricted in our society? Yes or No?
56. FoolYouTwice | April 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I imagine most people here believe your hyper-emotional rants (projection once again, you should teach a class on this) are what clutters the site.
57. SteaM | April 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Almiranta,
“You guys are sooooo impressed that Obama taught constitutional law, yet you seem unfazed by the fact that he doesn’t seem to understand it.”
Ok, I’m all ears. Why do you think he doesn’t seem to understand the constitution? Is it the gun thing?
58. TiredofLibBullSh** | April 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Joey, now, whipe the spit off your monitor.
McCain’s reality, your fantasy.
Why not say if it takes 1,000 years to win, that is how long he will keep them there?
Your erroneous interpretation, no matter how many times you repeat it, does not change what McCain said. You have convinced yourself, or you have been convinced by your liberal masters, that is what McCain “meant”. But it is not what he said. Obama is stretching the truth and you gullably fall for it. I guess you are still wondering what the definitions of “IS” or “ALONE” are.
DEMOCRATS - “ones who pander to the ignorant masses.”
Proudly, Joey, count yourself among them.
59. SteaM | April 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The fear I have is that McCain would be willing to attack Iran.
Do you guys think this is just a paranoid theory of mine or do you see it as a possibility?
60. Jeremiah | April 2nd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
The fear I have is that McCain would be willing to attack Iran.
Do you guys think this is just a paranoid theory of mine or do you see it as a possibility?–SteaM
No fear! Just get ‘er done!!!
–Jeremiah–
61. Some Assembly Required | April 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Jeremiah, I agree!!!!!
Lets just nuke the entire middle east except for Israel while we are at it. World War III doesn’t scare me, I really think it’s be great fun to live underground for 20 years while we wait for the fallout to subside…
It’s Armageddon baby… 2010 won’t you go to fire… why…. because it’s Armageddon baby…
62. Joe | April 2nd, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Oh man Jerimiah… you are now taking your foreign policy from Larry the Cable Guy?
That explains a lot.
63. Jeremiah | April 2nd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Oh me oh my, the DemocRATs opine, with their defeatist line, right on time, every time!!!
–Jeremiah–
64. Some Assembly Required | April 2nd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Jeremiah, are you sure your not slim shady… I mean with rhymes like that you should be famous son…
65. Rich | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
“The fear I have is that McCain would be willing to attack Iran.”
Are you just as scared that Obama will attack pakistan?
66. Joe | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Rich, why would we be scared of that?
I assume you are trying to hold Obama’s comments that he would attack AQ in Pakistan if the Pakistanis didn’t do anything about it? Is that correct?
Do you understand that this has already happened with Bush???
So another of your “gotchas” really didn’t do anything. In fact, that gotcha can now be put away for good…… unless of course, you are seriously upset that Bush did what you are so upset that Obama said he might do.
67. Plantation Owner | April 3rd, 2008 at 6:39 am
Joe, you are so predictable.
If AQ is in Pakistan, you are OK with Obama attacking it. Because when that point was brought up before, you libs, predictably, defended Obama by stating he would be going after the real enemy.
BUT, If AQ is in Iran, you are scared sh*tless!!!
I am waiting for the day you libs claim that Obama walked on water.
Truly pathetic, truly predictable. TOLBS is correct when he calls you USEFUL IDIOT and part of the ignorant masses.
68. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 9:40 am
Plantation Owner:
If AQ is in Pakistan, you are OK with Obama attacking it. Because when that point was brought up before, you libs, predictably, defended Obama by stating he would be going after the real enemy.
BUT, If AQ is in Iran, you are scared sh*tless!!!
That would be something since Sunni and Shia really don’t like each other. But hey… you can believe whatever it is that you want to believe.
Also, if you want to argue at least follow along. Rich was insinuating that Obama doesn’t know foreign policy because he said he would attack AQ in Pakistan if Pakistan didn’t do anything about a known area.
I’m pointing out that this is and has already happened with Bush. So if he wants to be upset with Obama and hold him to that, then he should also be upset with Bush.
You follow?
“truly pathetic, truly predicatable” you righties are indeed.
69. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 am
When you get an honest rebuttal Joe, Ill tell you about it.
70. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:27 am
yep… typical post out of you js. Don’t offer anything, just discount the other person’s post.
Do you ever have anything to offer?
By the way… what did I post that was not honest?