Uh Oh, There Goes the Jew Vote

bmulligan

bmulligan

CAGiversary!
Feedback
25 (100%)
I guess Jesse J came off his leash and ran to the nearest reporter to dole out pent up Hymietown angst that's been building up for so many years.

I know a lot of Jewish small business owners who are strong, lifelong Democrats who are going to be very disappointed in this development. I'm surprised there's been no mention of it here.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm?page=0

Jesse must have gotten tired of Obama talking down to black folk and decided the first sons of Abraham needed a good tongue lashing.
 
Since when does Jackson speak for Obama or even have anything to do really with his campaign?
 
[quote name='ProfWho']Since when does Jackson speak for Obama or even have anything to do really with his campaign?[/quote]

He's just part of the huge liberal conspiracy that also links Obama to the MSM media, ACORN, and Ayers. Didn't you get the talking points memo?
 
He's a freaking REVEREND. He speaks for Jesus, so I guess he can speak for an Obama administration.

I think Obama needs to immediately disavow himself from the Reverend as soon as possible to avoid further damage. And make sure that leash is better secured.
 
[quote name='camoor']He's just part of the huge liberal conspiracy that also links Obama to the MSM media, ACORN, and Ayers. Didn't you get the talking points memo?[/quote]

No, does it require the new secret decoder ring you get from being a member of Hannity's America? Cause my talking points memo just says how to bake a cake. I thought it was odd.
 
[quote name='camoor']He's just part of the huge liberal conspiracy that also links Obama to the MSM media, ACORN, and Ayers. Didn't you get the talking points memo?[/QUOTE]

No conspiracy here, just facts.

Ayers and Dohrn hosted a gathering at their home in the Hyde Park section of Chicago, the neighborhood in which the Obamas lived,[5] at which then- state Senator Alice J. Palmer introduced Barack Obama as her choice for the 1996 Democratic primary.[5] Palmer denied that she organized the political affair for Obama, although she said she attended. Dr. Quentin Young, a longtime physician, who also attended, referred to the gathering as the political coming-out party for Obama. Young said it was a small group—maybe a dozen or so people—who were being introduced to the next senator from Chicago's South Side, and that money was raised for Obama at the event.[9] Although the exact date of the gathering is not known, it was sometime in the second half of 1995, according to Ben Smith, a reporter for The Politico.[4]

Obama served as president of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a large education-related nonprofit organization that Ayers was instrumental in starting.[5] The board disbursed grants to schools and raised private matching funds while Ayers worked with the operational arm of the effort. Both attended some board meetings in common starting in 1995, retreats, and at least one news conference together as the education program started. They continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 period when the program was operating.[5]

Obama and Ayers served together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty foundation established in 1941. Obama had joined the nine-member board in 1993, and had attended a dozen of the quarterly meetings together with Ayers in the three years up to 2002, when Obama left his position on the board,[1] which Ayers chaired for two years.[10] Laura S. Washington, chairwoman of the Woods Fund, said the small board had a collegial "friendly but businesslike" atmosphere, and met four times a year for a half-day, mostly to approve grants.[2] The two also appeared together on academic panel discussions, including a 1997 University of Chicago discussion on juvenile justice. They again appeared in 2002 at an academic panel co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library.[1] One panel discussion in which they both appeared was organized by Obama's wife, Michelle.[11]
Click to expand...

They just say "Hi" to each other on the street, but in politcs, these financial associations mean so much more behind closed doors.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']No conspiracy here, just facts.



They just say "Hi" to each other on the street, but in politcs, these financial associations mean so much more behind closed doors.[/quote]

Oh Boy, can I play this game too???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iran_contra;_ylt=Asett2iFGI7XNbY2V.KkYrus0NUE

arack Obama has his William Ayers connection. Now John McCain may have an Iran-Contra connection. In the 1980s, McCain served on the advisory board to the U.S. chapter of an international group linked to ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America.

The U.S. Council for World Freedom aided rebels trying to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua. That landed the group in the middle of the Iran-Contra affair and in legal trouble with the Internal Revenue Service, which revoked the charitable organization's tax exemption.
The council created by retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub was the U.S. chapter of the World Anti-Communist League, an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. After setting up the U.S. council, Singlaub served as the international league's chairman.
Click to expand...

Or how about this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595.html

William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.


The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.
Click to expand...

Guilt by association is a fun game. Thing is though, everyone loses.
 
6th paragraph down.
Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter."
Click to expand...
Obama disavowed himself from Jackson from day one. Here's a funny tv funhouse sketch from SNL from like 2 years ago.

Not sure if embedding it will work, so, here is the link.
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/tv-funhouse-the-obama-files/224714/

funny stuff.

JJ must be fuming though. He made a career out of making white america out to be an opressive racist force. And now white america is supporting a black president and he has nothing to do with it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I thought you were a grown-up with some semblance of intellect, bmugs.

I thought wrong.[/QUOTE]

I swear you have basically posted this same remark 4 or 5 times now.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Doesn't JJ want to cut off Obama's nuts?

I don't think I'd hire somebody like that to speak for me.[/quote]


Yep.

[quote name='HowStern']JJ must be fuming though. He made a career out of making white america out to be an opressive racist force. And now white america is supporting a black president and he has nothing to do with it.[/quote]


Yep. Jesse Jackson hasn't been relevant for some time now.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']

Yep. Jesse Jackson hasn't been relevant for some time now.[/quote]

I agree. Why does he keep getting into the press is beyond me.

By the way, I recently saw an interview with Jesse Jackson Jr. I hope he is not as dumb as his father...
 
So let's get this straight. Jesse is not connected to the Obama campaign. He exercises his opinion about what's going to happen under an Obama presidency and now we want Obama to apologize or condemn him? Why not just let Jesse speak his mind and realize that he has nothing to do with Obama.
 
[quote name='depascal22']So let's get this straight. Jesse is not connected to the Obama campaign. He exercises his opinion about what's going to happen under an Obama presidency and now we want Obama to apologize or condemn him? Why not just let Jesse speak his mind and realize that he has nothing to do with Obama.[/quote]

For the same reason why Muslims in the US need to denounce other Muslims when they do bad things.

All black people think the same thing unless they specifically say otherwise.

That's how the people who are different from me work, isn't it?
 
[quote name='Xevious']I agree. Why does he keep getting into the press is beyond me.

By the way, I recently saw an interview with Jesse Jackson Jr. I hope he is not as dumb as his father...[/quote]


I agree with Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s voting record in Congress. It's a start. I already like him more than his father.
 
For the last week week on TV and even during the Palin - Biden debates everyone has been pledging their allegiance to Israel... it's been sickening.

If what JJ says is true (and to some degree, I think it may be, since the Zionist Neo-Conservatives would lose power under Obama), this is one of the few positives about Obama on my list... have Israel fight its own battles... stop sending billions of dollars to Israel per year while our economy is tanking!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']To remind voters that Obama is black.[/QUOTE]

Obama does that at every rally where he repeats his racially fueled allusion that Republicans are racists:

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills. And did I mention he's black?"
 
[quote name='ProfWho']Oh Boy, can I play this game too???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iran_contra;_ylt=Asett2iFGI7XNbY2V.KkYrus0NUE



Or how about this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595.html

Guilt by association is a fun game. Thing is though, everyone loses.[/QUOTE]


You make the same assumption that Myke does when he thinks eye-for-an-eye political bashing make his own candidate clean by mathematical cancellation.

Unfortunately for you, I'd agree with everything you say about McCain as well as a laundry list of other "associations" and philosophies that make his just as inappropriate a candidate for president as Obama.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Obama does that at every rally where he repeats his racially fueled allusion that Republicans are racists:

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills. And did I mention he's black?"[/quote]

But Republicans are doing that. You had that one sheriff that went on about how his name is Barack Hussein Obama. There's been alot of off-color comments about his name but it never comes from the big wigs. They always let some local official come up and make an ass of themselves.
 
[quote name='depascal22']But Republicans are doing that. You had that one sheriff that went on about how his name is Barack Hussein Obama. There's been alot of off-color comments about his name but it never comes from the big wigs. They always let some local official come up and make an ass of themselves.[/quote]
Yeah they do it the sly way, but it seems like their message might be back firing.
 
Ted Kennedy has referred to Obama as Osama. And if we can't tie Jessee Jackson to the Obama campaign, I fail to see how we can tie some redneck sheriff to McCain. Stop being so partisan and see things for what they are.

The writing of the quote for Obama that he repeats on every campaign stop is a brilliant strategy. It's virtually immune to a counter attack. One can't argue that he DOES look like the men on dollar bills (A recent invention to have presidents on the currency, btw) and that he's NOT black. But it's also purely emotional, non-substantive and beneath him, if he really is a candidate who claims to stand for the "issues" and not race. When he says this, he's not reaching out to anyone who wouldn't already vote for him, he preaching to the choir and using this rhetoric to softspeak a hard message: that Republicans are racists and this election is about racism. The message is meant to incite hatred, and corral his opposition into one, neat category.

I am not afraid of him because he's black, that's pedantic and insulting. I'm afraid of him because he represents the core Democrat ideology wrapped up in sheep's clothing and sold to the faithful as "Real change we can believe in." It's not change at all, it's the fulfillment of Socialist philosophy, which I vehemently oppose. I oppose McCain for virtually the same reasons.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Ted Kennedy has referred to Obama as Osama. And if we can't tie Jessee Jackson to the Obama campaign, I fail to see how we can tie some redneck sheriff to McCain. Stop being so partisan and see things for what they are.[/quote]

When the redneck sheriff is introducing McCain at a rally, he's just a little connected to the campaign. It's not like they let any ole fool hit the podium these days. Every person is vetted so they don't say something on camera that will be all over CNN the next hour.

Jesse Jackson has never introduced Obama or been a part of his campaign. Also, Ted Kennedy is hitting that age that alcohol has soaked his brain enough to allow him an honest mistake in referring to Obama as Osama.

I don't see how anything I just wrote is partisan. I'm stating facts as they are without twisting them for my liberal agenda.

EDIT -- And what would be so bad about a ultra-liberal president? Abortion is already legal. The Second Amendment still looks very strong after what happened in DC. Gays won't destroy the American family. What are you really scared of?

EDIT #2 -- Oh, and your OP title isn't a little partisan? You're assuming that Jews will reject Obama just because of the words of Jesse Jackson. Doesn't that make you sound like a panderer? Wouldn't Obama have a 20 point lead if every black person got pissed at Rush Limbaugh and voted for Obama just because that idiot decided to open his mouth? You're just spewing garbage and it's starting to get ridiculous.
 
I'd love a "liberal" president, not a socialist one. Someone who believes and practices protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals instead of confiscating wealth to buy votes would be a welcome addition to the political theater.

And technically, it's not pandering since I'm not offering anything of value to my constituency. I'm just making a casual observation that a lot of my jewish business owning friends will not take kindly to this interpretation of an Obama presidency. It may indeed scare them off in numbers. Obama needs to strong arm Jackson to shut him up quickly and retract his statement. In politics, appearances are everything, as you so eloquently pointed out.

Maybe Jackson is pining for a position and is spewing forth to get leverage for silence. Maybe a deal's already been breached and Jackson's getting retribution. Who knows what types of deals have been done in the party leading up to this election, you have to know there have been many and will be many more. I'm just making conversation with hyperbole. It's moire fun that way.
 
Wow. Your gaps in logic are high and dry, my man, now that you're reduced to mere speculation with regards to your attempt to link two men together, one of whom wants to cut the other's nuts off. Get together with level1online and let's see what awesome speculative conspiracies you can come up with.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Doesn't JJ want to cut off Obama's nuts?

I don't think I'd hire somebody like that to speak for me.[/quote]
When the hell did i ever say that?;)
 
[quote name='SpazX']For the same reason why Muslims in the US need to denounce other Muslims when they do bad things.

All black people think the same thing unless they specifically say otherwise.

That's how the people who are different from me work, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

Duh.

Anyway, it's really a moot point: those "in the know" seem pretty confident that Barak Hussein Obama and his Arabic name are going to get the smallest number of Jewish votes in thirty years. At this point, he could come out and say, "Honestly, people -- matzoh is *so* bland!" and it wouldn't make a difference.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Obama does that at every rally where he repeats his racially fueled allusion that Republicans are racists:

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills. And did I mention he's black?"[/quote]

I don't think he has mentioned that for months.

[quote name='bmulligan']You make the same assumption that Myke does when he thinks eye-for-an-eye political bashing make his own candidate clean by mathematical cancellation.

Unfortunately for you, I'd agree with everything you say about McCain as well as a laundry list of other "associations" and philosophies that make his just as inappropriate a candidate for president as Obama.[/quote]

Just like you should be judged by the character of your coworkers or the guy who checked you out at the supermarket.

I don't really think it makes my guy clean. My guy is clean because my guy had nothing to do with the Weather Underground. Ayers paid his debt and now the most radical thing he does is write grants, teach, and advocate education reform.

[quote name='bmulligan']Ted Kennedy has referred to Obama as Osama. And if we can't tie Jessee Jackson to the Obama campaign, I fail to see how we can tie some redneck sheriff to McCain. Stop being so partisan and see things for what they are. [/quote]

You mean you cannot tie a person to a campaign when they are speaking at a campaign rally?

I am not afraid of him because he's black, that's pedantic and insulting. I'm afraid of him because he represents the core Democrat ideology wrapped up in sheep's clothing and sold to the faithful as "Real change we can believe in." It's not change at all, it's the fulfillment of Socialist philosophy, which I vehemently oppose. I oppose McCain for virtually the same reasons.
Click to expand...

225px-Is_this_tomorrow.jpg

bathroomv.jpg


[quote name='bmulligan']I'd love a "liberal" president, not a socialist one. Someone who believes and practices protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals instead of confiscating wealth to buy votes would be a welcome addition to the political theater.

And technically, it's not pandering since I'm not offering anything of value to my constituency. I'm just making a casual observation that a lot of my jewish business owning friends will not take kindly to this interpretation of an Obama presidency. It may indeed scare them off in numbers. Obama needs to strong arm Jackson to shut him up quickly and retract his statement. In politics, appearances are everything, as you so eloquently pointed out.

Maybe Jackson is pining for a position and is spewing forth to get leverage for silence. Maybe a deal's already been breached and Jackson's getting retribution. Who knows what types of deals have been done in the party leading up to this election, you have to know there have been many and will be many more. I'm just making conversation with hyperbole. It's moire fun that way.[/quote]

These guys are involved in the deals as well

1_608353681l.jpg
 
All Obama said was that he would make the rich pay a little more. He said that Warren Buffet can afford to pay a little more. He even said during the debate that he wouldn't mind paying a little more.

What's the difference between donating money to charity to get into a lower tax bracket or just paying a little more taxes? Does it really get under rich people's skin that the government uses that money to give to minorities in the form of cheap public housing and food stamps? Isn't that what the Salvation Army and other charities do anyway? Neither one will efficiently use your money no matter what they promise so why is it that big of a deal if the government asks for a little more to pay off the debt or to fund research on alternative fuels.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Neither one will efficiently use your money no matter what they promise so why is it that big of a deal if the government asks for a little more to pay off the debt or to fund research on alternative fuels.[/quote]

Efficiency is the problem.

That and the government will never pay off the debt or aggressively roll out alternative fuels.

The research argument itself is a red herring. The research for alternative fuels is strong enough to compete with regular fuels.

We just gave $25 billion to automakers so they could survive. fuck ... THEM. They produced a product nobody wanted. Let them fail. Producers of alternative and better cars can and will pick up the slack.

I'm getting sick of how the government continues to rig the game in the favor of their campaign contributors.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
I'm getting sick of how the government continues to rig the game in the favor of their campaign contributors.[/QUOTE]

But Democrats don't do that, they FIGHT FOR YOU !
 
[quote name='bmulligan']But Democrats don't do that, they FIGHT FOR YOU ![/quote]

I've been told I have a bad attitude. I'm told I'd feel better if I painted my shackles a different color and added some cool stickers.
 
[quote name='ProfWho']
Just like you should be judged by the character of your coworkers or the guy who checked you out at the supermarket. ....

You mean you cannot tie a person to a campaign when they are speaking at a campaign rally?...

[/quote]

If you can't admit that Obama's relationship with Ayers is just a tad bit different than my relationship with the clerk who rings up my groceries, then you have more problems than naivete.

Although by ridiculing the idea of closed-door strong arm tactics, you really have no concept of how politics really works. Don't they teach political machine history in high school anymore? Tammany Hall, anyone? Please tell me you don't think that shit disappeared after the 19th century and politics is now fair and balanced because of the information age. You can't be that obtuse.
 
Who gives a damn anyways, Gears of War 2 wil be out soon and none of this will matter...

Being at that age where the bright eyed hope of liberal thinking starts to give way to the staunch "clutch it all to my chest" thinking of conservatism, I find myself quite curious as to how this will all turn out. I don't think I'll vote for Obama, but I think I will vote against the possibilty of Sarah Palin being anywhere near the constitution.
 
[quote name='nasum']Being at that age where the bright eyed hope of liberal thinking starts to give way to the staunch "clutch it all to my chest" thinking of conservatism, I find myself quite curious as to how this will all turn out. I don't think I'll vote for Obama, but I think I will vote against the possibilty of Sarah Palin being anywhere near the constitution.[/quote]

Haha I used to be a "stars in my eyes" Horatio Alger conservative who had a good waking-up dose of compassion for my fellow man and newfound disgust for aristocratic arrogance/ignorance. The religious right didn't hurt my conversion either.

Yeah, I know I'm doing it backwards :D
 
[quote name='depascal22']
What's the difference between donating money to charity to get into a lower tax bracket or just paying a little more taxes? Does it really get under rich people's skin that the government uses that money to give to minorities in the form of cheap public housing and food stamps? Isn't that what the Salvation Army and other charities do anyway? Neither one will efficiently use your money no matter what they promise so why is it that big of a deal if the government asks for a little more to pay off the debt or to fund research on alternative fuels.[/QUOTE]
Charities are routinely audited. And people can stop donating if they do a shitty job. Same with churches (Who do much faster and efficient help in most disasters lately). If government operated similarly.... we can only dream.

Any time you FORCE money out of people's wallets in the name of social help, you are going to be the most inefficient of all, because there is no accountability. Then comes the argument, that many have made here, that who cares if most of the money gets wasted - it's the only system we have so we should keep growing it.

[quote name='nasum']Who gives a damn anyways, Gears of War 2 wil be out soon and none of this will matter...[/quote]
Right on brother. I've actually been thinking this exact same thing for a while. I can't wait to lose myself in some Gears to numb the noise of all the cries of racism and election fraud that will permeate the news that week.

Being at that age where the bright eyed hope of liberal thinking starts to give way to the staunch "clutch it all to my chest" thinking of conservatism, I find myself quite curious as to how this will all turn out. I don't think I'll vote for Obama, but I think I will vote against the possibilty of Sarah Palin being anywhere near the constitution.
Click to expand...
This election has never been about McCain. It's always been about Obama, and whether he should or shouldn't be president and why.

That's McCain's biggest fault in this election. He can't win it by selling himself. He has to win it by showing why you shouldn't vote for Obama. Unfortunately his attack ads don't explain, through Obama's policies, why you shouldn't vote for Obama. So McCain deserves to lose, and will.

[quote name='camoor']Haha I used to be a "stars in my eyes" Horatio Alger conservative who had a good waking-up dose of compassion for my fellow man and newfound disgust for aristocratic arrogance/ignorance. The religious right didn't hurt my conversion either.[/quote]

Nothing wrong with that. I feel pretty similar. The difference being - I'll never fully understand why compassion is not considered by many to be conducive to conservatism. But I do understand why faith in the government to implement compassionate policy is conducive to naivety.
 
Uh oh thrust busted out the CAPS LOCK the one thing sure to show you really are right.

No seriously that shit is like kryptonite to us internet liberals.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']...

He used caps once. As much as I prefer to be bold about things, that's hardly something worth getting on his back about.[/QUOTE]

Are you SURE about that?

No seriously there is a long history behind the way idiots like thrust use the word force, it is a loaded use of an already loaded word and it is best to nip it in the bud when one of these clowns bust it out.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']If you can't admit that Obama's relationship with Ayers is just a tad bit different than my relationship with the clerk who rings up my groceries, then you have more problems than naivete.

Although by ridiculing the idea of closed-door strong arm tactics, you really have no concept of how politics really works. Don't they teach political machine history in high school anymore? Tammany Hall, anyone? Please tell me you don't think that shit disappeared after the 19th century and politics is now fair and balanced because of the information age. You can't be that obtuse.[/quote]

So do the Presidents of Northwestern University and the University of Illinois also need to step down because they were on the same panel? Do Republicans have something to answer for because a Republican was on the head of the panel?

Also, just because we remember Tamany Hall and all the crap that went down in New York doesn't mean we have to like it. It's pretty cool to look at things and say that they're fucked up. It doesn't mean that we're ignorant to this country's long storied history of corruption and greed at the local, state, and federal levels.
 
[quote name='depascal22']So do the Presidents of Northwestern University and the University of Illinois also need to step down because they were on the same panel? Do Republicans have something to answer for because a Republican was on the head of the panel?

Also, just because we remember Tamany Hall and all the crap that went down in New York doesn't mean we have to like it. It's pretty cool to look at things and say that they're fucked up. It doesn't mean that we're ignorant to this country's long storied history of corruption and greed at the local, state, and federal levels.[/QUOTE]


It means you're willfully ignorant if you don't think the same kind of deal making, coercion, muck raking, leg breaking, and yes, even killing does NOT exist today as it has throughout recorded history. Only today they don't break legs as much as they break bank accounts, fortunes, and public image. Is Jackson just shooting of at the mouth? He tends to do that away from the cameras, yes, but in public, all politicians words are made with specific calculations. This is no accident.

And yes, if the presidents of U of Illinois and Northwestern had coming out fundraisers to launch their political careers at Ayer's house and decide to run for POTUS, they should absolutely have to explain their relationships and face scrutiny - Democrat or Republican.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']

And yes, if the presidents of U of Illinois and Northwestern had coming out fundraisers to launch their political careers at Ayer's house and decide to run for POTUS, they should absolutely have to explain their relationships and face scrutiny - Democrat or Republican.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying it's ok for the terrorists to have a role in the U.S. education system as long as they don't go for public office?
 
And who's willfully ignorant that politicians are crooked dirty bastards. Every one of us has railed against the establishment and there's even been talk of revising the Constitution to the abolition of political parties. I think you're being willfully ignorant of what people are really saying on this board.

It stil hasn't been proven that Obama started his political career in Ayers' living room. I haven't heard a credible eyewitness that was at said coming out party. For all we know, Obama was right and he started in a Mariott conference room.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']If you can't admit that Obama's relationship with Ayers is just a tad bit different than my relationship with the clerk who rings up my groceries, then you have more problems than naivete. [/quote]

Do you know how much interaction people on boards have with each other?

Although by ridiculing the idea of closed-door strong arm tactics, you really have no concept of how politics really works. Don't they teach political machine history in high school anymore? Tammany Hall, anyone? Please tell me you don't think that shit disappeared after the 19th century and politics is now fair and balanced because of the information age. You can't be that obtuse.
Click to expand...

I know about that stuff very well. I also know a thing or two about Illinois politics. I also know that you are full of conspiracy shit.

[quote name='bmulligan']It means you're willfully ignorant if you don't think the same kind of deal making, coercion, muck raking, leg breaking, and yes, even killing does NOT exist today as it has throughout recorded history. Only today they don't break legs as much as they break bank accounts, fortunes, and public image. Is Jackson just shooting of at the mouth? He tends to do that away from the cameras, yes, but in public, all politicians words are made with specific calculations. This is no accident.
[/quote]

If you think Jackson is that calculating you seriously know jack shit about Jackson.

And yes, if the presidents of U of Illinois and Northwestern had coming out fundraisers to launch their political careers at Ayer's house and decide to run for POTUS, they should absolutely have to explain their relationships and face scrutiny - Democrat or Republican.
Click to expand...

What if Ayers was on the hiring committee at the University of Illinois? Does that mean every education professor they hire is also shady by proxy. Or how about the people who serve on the faculty senate? Maybe his program secretary is up to some shit as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top