That’s a rather loose standard. Couldn’t it apply to any well-traveled government official? After all, the world is full of odious characters. In fact, wouldn’t you want a President to know how to deal with these people?
All of the “bad guy” things listed in the OP happened after Obama’s visit.
You make a good point about the DC associations. But that doesn’t mean the others aren’t important, as well. And sometimes a pattern develops: Wright, Ayers, Odinga. That would indicate a pattern, would it not? And I don’t mean to imply that Obama would intentionally do anything that would hurt the country. Only that his world view may be something that would hurt the country unintentionally. And that if people knew what it was, they wouldn’t vote him in.
Here’s another question: don’t you think the people have a right to have a clear understanding of what a candidate believes and stands for? I find Obama’s association to be troubliing to say the least. If it was nay one character, fine. But this pattern raises more than one eyebrow.
No, actually. No eyebrows are raised her. An awful lot of eyes are rolling, though. The desperation of the right wing is palpable. I’m kind of loving it…
I see an “endorsement” as an official-type statement. Very public. A candidate can be helped by someone without that endorsement.
For now, I see it as the most accurate information we have. It’s an article in a well-respected newspaper. It may be flawed, but we shouldn’t assume that until those flaws are pointed out.
On further reflection, are a candidate’s associations with foreigners as significant as his associations with other Americans? After all, unless you suspect the candidate of being a spy of some kind, how much benefit is the foreigner going to get from the association, since treaties and trade agreements have to go through Congress, anyway? The fellow American, though, if he’s a CEO of a major corporation, stands to benefit quite a lot if his friend gets elected, possibly to the detriment of the American taxpayer.
What pattern? They’re pretty dissimiliar, one was a Vietnam war protester, one a black preacher and ones a Kenyan politician. If you put them all in a room together, I doubt they’d have much to talk about.
What raises an eyebrow is your use of the word “pattern.”
:dubious:
No, it’s not, again. The Moonie Times is only well-respected by people whose politics are already in line with True Father’s.
Kenya. Not Zimbabwe. Never was Rhodesia, still fucked. D’oh.
But! We have our answer! Obama was meddling in internal Kenyan politics to support his tribal allegiance to the Luo tribe. Therein, behold the Darkness.
(I don’t much approve of joke threads in Great Debates, but I gotta hand it up, credit where credit due, this is a beaut, Mag. You really had them going there, thinking maybe you were really serious about this drivel. I mean, snap!…)
Opinion, shocking as it may be, registered. See ya.
This is a real game-changer. I feel the McMentum starting to rise. Obama is toast. No way he can recover from this bombshell. (Followed by a million of these: :rolleyes:)
PS I heard Obama was seen in the checkout line at the grocery store only 2 people ahead of a convicted (and unrepentant, no doubt) arsonist. When will Obama stop lying and start answering questions about THIS association? Huh?
You bring up an excellent point. Yes, we have very important issues on the table that need our attention. But the fact is that in a very short time we’re going to select the person who will lead us in handling them. I think who that person is is of paramount importance. I think Obama is smart and gives a wonderful speech. And that statement is not meant to denigrate his oratorical skills. They should be lauded. But I think he is extremely liberal and borderline socialist (small “s”). His associations in the past lead me to the former, his tax plan proves the latter.
Another reason why associations matter, if a pattern can be discerned, is that they give a glimpse into a person’s character. and given that we can never know what the problems and challenges are going to be for a President, I think that matters greatly. Do you think GWB would have been the person chosen if we knew we were going to be attacked 8 months after his inauguration? Do you think either McCain or Obama would have won their respective nominations if the financial problems we’re in hit early in March? I’d bet “no” on all accounts. So, the person we have in there is very important.
Why thank you for pointing to this, the good evidence shows that Obama has repudiated the bad acts of all mentioned, I thank you for helping me point out the good pattern coming out from these encounters.
As for McCain’s pattern:
This is probably the most pathetic thread I’ve ever seen in GD. This is a perfect example of the willful stupidity that American conservatism has devolved to.
Well of course they wouldn’t have anything to say to each other:
Barack Hussein Obama: Number 7½?
Rev. Jeremiah Wright: My Lord, the subversion of Christianity is proceeding according to plan. All is in place for you to be hailed as the new Messiah by Easter 2009.
BHO: Excellent. Number 162,413?
Bill Ayers: Lord Obama, I have been assured by our advance teams that the demolition charges will all be in place by Inauguration Day.
BHO: Very good. Number 3.14159?
Raila Odinga: My Lord, although the plans to harness Africa’s natural resources for The Cause have hit a few snags, I am assured by my underlings that everything will soon be back on track; and also that our army of bioengineered cyborg Maasai warriors will be ready only a few weeks behind schedule.
BHO: Hmmm…
A trap door suddenly opens…
Raila Odinga: AIEEEE!
Piranhas: Chomp! Chomp! Chomp!
Well, everyone’s a socialist right now. Bush, McCain, Obama, no borderline about it, and I think we could dicker about the small “s”. If you’re demanding pure capitalism, you’re SOL right now.
But that said, I’m curious about what these associations are really supposed to indicate. What does a connection to Ayers really mean aside from Obama being involved in school reform? Wright, okay, I can see where you might assume Obama shares some value there. But what do pull out of Odinga?
In 1942 Sen. Byrd joined the KKK. Byrd is a Senator. Obama is a senator. Byrd is a democrat. Obama is a democrat. What else do we need? Obama is pro KKK.
Why is it that people will hint ominously that these things “should raise some serious questions”, but those same people refuse to take a stab at what in the everloving fuck those “serious questions” ought to be?
It’s all a McGuffin. The point is not the answers or even the questions. The point is to say “bad guy” [words] “Obama” over and over.
He simply must, must! be carrying one of those expensive looking white cats, *a la *Ernst Stavro Blofeld. And lose the trapdoor chair, Obama nails him with a spear chucked from way across the room! Ah, thrown. Thrown from way across the room…