Obama the Community Organizer

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Did any of these geniuses think to take a look at Public Allies website to find out what they are about? Of course not. They are not interested in truth and facts, only lies and smear. It's so pathetic. The information below comes from their website:

I read your post, but it didn't give ANY information about what Public Allies actually DOES. The IBD article did. Do you have a real-life description of what they actually do? (I, like most readers will not follow the links unless the quotes you can show are really interesting and compelling to really want more information.)

What your post did describe was compatible with the IBD article.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I read your post, but it didn't give ANY information about what Public Allies actually DOES. The IBD article did. Do you have a real-life description of what they actually do? (I, like most readers will not follow the links unless the quotes you can show are really interesting and compelling to really want more information.)

What your post did describe was compatible with the IBD article.

Scotty if you're not willing to do a simple thing like follow a link that has been provided for you to answer your questions I must assume you're not really interested in those answers.

The things posted here are of no real consequence to the outcome of the election. They are distractions from the real issues that most people care about.

I accept the fact that you and other posters here have a hardened point of view with respect to Barack and Michelle Obama. If you are predisposed to believing negative information you will seek out and be attracted to any negative information, no matter what the source. When you have a hardened point of view nothing anyone can say will make any difference or change your opinion. It's pointless to debate it.

I'm not pointing fingers, we all do it. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. I know who I will be voting for in November. I'm sure you do too. Nothing you can say will change my mind, and I don't expect that anything I might have to say will change yours.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

The things posted here are of no real consequence to the outcome of the election. They are distractions from the real issues that most people care about.
...

Nothing you can say will change my mind, and I don't expect that anything I might have to say will change yours.

Are you really saying that there is NOTHING you could learn about Obama that would make you rethink your vote?

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Are you really saying that there is NOTHING you could learn about Obama that would make you rethink your vote?

What could I say that would make you rethink your vote for McCain?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Scotty if you're not willing to do a simple thing like follow a link that has been provided for you to answer your questions I must assume you're not really interested in those answers.

The things posted here are of no real consequence to the outcome of the election. They are distractions from the real issues that most people care about.

I accept the fact that you and other posters here have a hardened point of view with respect to Barack and Michelle Obama. If you are predisposed to believing negative information you will seek out and be attracted to any negative information, no matter what the source. When you have a hardened point of view nothing anyone can say will make any difference or change your opinion. It's pointless to debate it.

I'm not pointing fingers, we all do it. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. I know who I will be voting for in November. I'm sure you do too. Nothing you can say will change my mind, and I don't expect that anything I might have to say will change yours.

I hear you. I sometimes feel the same way about it when others ask for proof of this or that. It is generally a waste of my time because it will not affect any real change of opinion in the one who asked for the information.

I thought that since you had provided the information you did, that you might have some more useful information. I assumed the website you linked contained this information among a bunch of stuff. When I have time, and I am posting information from a website, I try to post what would actually answer the argument.

Sometimes it's just not worth the effort to find some verifiable data. I agree with you if that is your viewpoint. The one I find really annoying in this regard is ganeil (and e90im when I used to make an effort in reply to him) because no matter what amount of proof you offer, it is never sufficient to affect an iota of change in his opinion. So, I usually just argue with him from whatever I feel like typing up, and don't really enjoy that argument. It is like throwing a ball against a brick wall. It bounces back to you the same as it was. And because of their lack of persuasiveness, my opinion is still unchanged, too.

Then sometimes at a later date, the same subject comes to mind in reading some other information and I might post some quotes.

Really, I wish I didn't spend as much time here as I do.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

What could I say that would make you rethink your vote for McCain?

There are plenty of things that would make me reconsider supporting McCain. If I found out that he had impregnated a staffer and then sent her for an abortion, was embezzling funds from his wife's company, or if I learned that he had a past association with a radical right organization that espoused the overthrow of the US government would be reason to stop supporting him. You?

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I hear you. I sometimes feel the same way about it when others ask for proof of this or that. It is generally a waste of my time because it will not affect any real change of opinion in the one who asked for the information.

I thought that since you had provided the information you did, that you might have some more useful information. I assumed the website you linked contained this information among a bunch of stuff. When I have time, and I am posting information from a website, I try to post what would actually answer the argument.

Sometimes it's just not worth the effort to find some verifiable data. I agree with you if that is your viewpoint. The one I find really annoying in this regard is ganeil (and e90im when I used to make an effort in reply to him) because no matter what amount of proof you offer, it is never sufficient to affect an iota of change in his opinion. So, I usually just argue with him from whatever I feel like typing up, and don't really enjoy that argument. It is like throwing a ball against a brick wall. It bounces back to you the same as it was. And because of their lack of persuasiveness, my opinion is still unchanged, too.

Then sometimes at a later date, the same subject comes to mind in reading some other information and I might post some quotes.

Really, I wish I didn't spend as much time here as I do.

Surprising as it is, I believe we have finally found some common ground. I can actually relate to most of what you said.

By the way the link does contain the information you had asked about. You may have your own feelings about the true nature of the mission of the organization but all the details of what they do and how they do it are there.

[Toomstone]

When the media is in Obama's back pocket... you can't expect anything negative on him to be reported right? I mean then they wouldn't be fully supporting him like they are now. Definitely makes sense.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by ganeil

There are plenty of things that would make me reconsider supporting McCain. If I found out that he had impregnated a staffer and then sent her for an abortion, was embezzling funds from his wife's company, or if I learned that he had a past association with a radical right organization that espoused the overthrow of the US government would be reason to stop supporting him. You?

There are any number of things that might make me reconsider my vote for Obama. Among them would be, as you say some type of reckless infidelity, a serious lapse in moral judgement or action, a malicious lie or betrayal of trust, or any kind of inapropriate action of serious consequence to others.

I purposely worded my question to you the way I did because I would not be likely to believe anyone posting here if they posted any of the above about Obama. I would have to have that kind of information verified by a trusted source before I would accept it as true.

I expect you probably feel the same.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

There are any number of things that might make me reconsider my vote for Obama. Among them would be, as you say some type of reckless infidelity, a serious lapse in moral judgement or action, a malicious lie or betrayal of trust, or an innapropriate action of serious consequence to others.

I purposely worded my question to you the way I did because I would not be likely to believe anyone posting here if they reported any of the above about Obama. I would have to have that kind of information verified by a trusted source before I would accept it as true.

What I find interesting is that with what we DO know about Obama you are still supporting him.

I could NEVER support a man who knowingly associated with admitted terrorists who attempted to murder fellow Americans regardless of his political positions.

[sayemthree]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

There are any number of things that might make me reconsider my vote for Obama. Among them would be, as you say some type of reckless infidelity, a serious lapse in moral judgement or action, a malicious lie or betrayal of trust, or any kind of inapropriate action of serious consequence to others.

I purposely worded my question to you the way I did because I would not be likely to believe anyone posting here if they posted any of the above about Obama. I would have to have that kind of information verified by a trusted source before I would accept it as true.

I expect you probably feel the same.

If I found out that Obama was really a islamic racist anti-american non-patriot that swore his oath on the koran and removed the american flag from his airplanes (and only put them up behind his speeches to get votes) - then I would change my mind and not vote for him. but only then.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by scottwww

The one I find really annoying in this regard is ganeil (and e90im when I used to make an effort in reply to him) because no matter what amount of proof you offer, it is never sufficient to affect an iota of change in his opinion.

Gee Scott you are going to make me cry. Maybe if you understood that posting columns written by unknown people on subjects of which they have no real or academic expertise and "published" on obscure conspiracy theory type websites does not constitute "proof" to anyone but you, you would not be so easily frustrated.

I somewhat admire your quest for knowledge but you should be more discriminating in where you look for that knowledge.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by ganeil

What I find interesting is that with what we DO know about Obama you are still supporting him.

I could NEVER support a man who knowingly associated with admitted terrorists who attempted to murder fellow Americans regardless of his political positions.

You are obviously refering to Bill Ayres. My perspective is that Barack Obama was a child when Ayres committed those crimes. The crimes were committed several years ago. Bill Ayres was processed through the legal system and through a botched prosecution has served no time for his crime. He has since rehabilitated his life and has become a productive member of society, well respected by many in his community. He also managed to form many local political connections.

Obama's association with Ayres began after he had become a respected member of the community. I don't forgive or excuse the violent acts Bill Ayres admitted to years ago, but they have nothing to do with Barack Obama. Barack Obama did not commit those crimes, and I do not believe he has any guilt by association with Bill Ayres. I'm satisfied and comfortable with what I know and what has been reported about the nature of Obama's relationship with Bill Ayres. I believe it is primarily a business/political relationship, and though I do believe they may be very friendly or may have been very friendly at one time, I do not believe they are close friends now or in the past. I certainly don't believe Barack Obama has any inclinations to violence or harbors any feelings of hate toward anyone.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

You are obviously refering to Bill Ayres. My perspective is that Barack Obama was a child when Ayres committed those crimes. The crimes were committed several years ago. Bill Ayres was processed through the legal system and through a botched prosecution has served no time for his crime. He has since rehabilitated his life and has become a productive member of society, well respected by many in his community. He also managed to form many local political connections.

Obama's association with Ayres began after he had become a respected member of the community. I don't forgive or excuse the violent acts Bill Ayres admitted to years ago, but they have nothing to do with Barack Obama. Barack Obama did not commit those crimes, and I do not believe he has any guilt by association with Bill Ayres. I'm satisfied and comfortable with what I know and what has been reported about the nature of Obama's relationship with Bill Ayres. I believe it is primarily a business/political relationship, and though I do believe they may be very friendly or may have been very friendly at one time, I do not believe they are close friends now or in the past.

How do you figure he has rehabilitated his life when he has not even apologized for what he did? He is completely unrepentant and has even gone so far as to say that he wishes they had done more.

I'm sorry but the argument that Obama was young when the crimes were committed is specious. Ask yourself if you would feel the same if it were McCain who knowingly worked for/with a former Nazi SS officer who had led a model life after the war. For some reason I doubt it.

Ayers is a man who formed an organization that killed innocent Americans. He has never made amends for his crimes and you are comfortable with the idea that the man you support for President is his friend and colleague?

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by ganeil

How do you figure he has rehabilitated his life when he has not even apologized for what he did? He is completely unrepentant and has even gone so far as to say that he wishes they had done more.

I'm sorry but the argument that Obama was young when the crimes were committed is specious. Ask yourself if you would feel the same if it were McCain who knowingly worked for/with a former Nazi SS officer who had led a model life after the war. For some reason I doubt it.

Ayers is a man who formed an organization that killed innocent Americans. He has never made amends for his crimes and you are comfortable with the idea that the man you support for President is his friend and colleague?

You asked me a question and I answered it honestly. We are now moving into the realm of hardened points of view. To carry this further in my opinion is pointless. You obviously have one point of view, which I accept, but don't agree with, and I have another.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Gee Scott you are going to make me cry. Maybe if you understood that posting columns written by unknown people on subjects of which they have no real or academic expertise and "published" on obscure conspiracy theory type websites does not constitute "proof" to anyone but you, you would not be so easily frustrated.

I somewhat admire your quest for knowledge but you should be more discriminating in where you look for that knowledge.

I don't care to rehash old arguments with you. I have presented a good deal of verifiable factual information to support my arguments. There is only one reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. Then you respond with the same reply you gave before. The proof doesn't seem to matter to you. You are not persuaded. It is a worthless effort with you. No matter what, you will not be persuaded to believe what you don't want to believe. You are an establishment moderate Republican that is blind to any other way.

Although I disagree with the left, I do believe I understand their viewpoint. I married one who is moderately left. Many on the left will not discuss issues that are not in their favor. They would rather not have their ideas challenged, so they remain in their error. You are somewhat the same because your viewpoint is never swayed just as if you heard no argument.

When I discuss issues with those who actually are looking for some agreement, we usually find some, and I believe we are both better off for learning from each other. I don't get the idea that you ever learn anything from discussion. And in reflection, I don't know that I have been persuaded in anything by you except maybe a year ago you wrote something about repealing the amendment to the constitution that had made the election of U.S. Senators a direct election. I tend toward the repeal of that amendment.

Since all our arguments have resulted in only that one point of inspiration, I must devalue our discourse. I likely would have come to that same inspiration by my subsequent reading of materials promoted by the Constitution Party.

Perhaps others have benefited from your argument.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I don't care to rehash old arguments with you. I have presented a good deal of verifiable factual information to support my arguments. There is only one reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. Then you respond with the same reply you gave before. The proof doesn't seem to matter to you. You are not persuaded. It is a worthless effort with you. No matter what, you will not be persuaded to believe what you don't want to believe. You are an establishment moderate Republican that is blind to any other way.

What exactly do you consider "verifiable factual information?" To the best of my recollection you have posted portions of the Constitution or a statute with absolutely no analysis or analysis from sources I described previously.

Did I miss something?

FWIW, this is the first time I have been called a moderate, feels kinda strange. I guess when you are out on the fringe a Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan conservative looks moderate.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by sayemthree

If I found out that Obama was really a islamic racist anti-american non-patriot that swore his oath on the koran and removed the american flag from his airplanes (and only put them up behind his speeches to get votes) - then I would change my mind and not vote for him. but only then.

OK I'll play along. Don't tell anyone but the whole Obama family are really islamic extremist sleeper cells. The kids are really islamic extremist midgets in disguise. Once he becomes president they will all reveal themselves and then...

You finnish the rest ...

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

You asked me a question and I answered it honestly. We are now moving into the realm of hardened points of view. To carry this further in my opinion is pointless. You obviously have one point of view, which I accept, but don't agree with, and I have another.

No, I am trying to understand your point of view. Your answer seemed to be a rationalization for doing what you want to do rather than a decision based on principle.

Can you think of a Democrat that is too radical or two far left for you to support?

[sayemthree]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Can you think of a Democrat that is too radical or two far left for you to support?

ummm - Barack?

[alms21]

Originally Posted by ganeil

No, I am trying to understand your point of view. Your answer seemed to be a rationalization for doing what you want to do rather than a decision based on principle.

Can you think of a Democrat that is too radical or two far left for you to support?

You're wasting your time Ganeil or your question was rhetorical in nature

As far as being more liberal ---- that's impossible because Obama already has the most liberal voting record in ALL of CONGRESS. That is FACT

He has a more liberal voting record than Bernie Sanders ---- Bernie Sanders is a self admitted Socialist!!!!!

Its as plain as the nose on your face.