Mutual bafflement between Matty Orchard and Lindsay Perigo: how Palin gets Lindsay misty-eyed for America, why Matty gets hopeful that a President Obama might not cause the skies to fall on Marcus Bachler.

It seems Colin Powell has been taking note of the Ayers controversy, and of talking points about Obama's Muslim heritage, and of his waffly, socialist, messianic rhetoric.

In short, Powell has decided. Here is seven minutes of the most popular Republican in America speaking directly to Lindsay, Sandi, Marcus and the others who are fearful, enraged or merely puzzled why anyone would vote for an appeasing Muslim socialist airhead.

(I note that Lindsay has passed on the chance to hand out traitor badges this week -- and commend him for calming that kind of rhetoric for the duration)

I'm equally as baffled by the fact that you like Sarah Palin. It's a wash.

Linz-
I actually think we're in agreement here

I'm in shock too.

But mainly about Matty. Supporting Obama is, in Chris Sciabarra's immortal phrase, beyond baffling.

Linz-
I actually think we're in agreement here . With the requisite nod to costs and cursing taxation as the means to pay for it, I am for keeping what nuclear arms we have superior such as more precise guidance via GPS, etc. As for the missile defense, I'm against the current incarnation due to cost and relevance to possible threats (i.e. in all-out nuclear exchange with Russia, it will stop so few to be worth much, while if we're talking about an uppity Pakistan or nuclear Iran, expect the delivery vehicle to be van, cargo ship or commercial airlines, not ICBM), but would be for the general concept of even 'Star Wars' style defense if it were actually cost-effectively feasible.

Aaron

Attorney Phil Berg who has filed a lawsuit against Barack Obama for not being a US Citizen is featured on Fox News

Phil Berg's website: "It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the “qualifications” to be President of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist."

September 2008: Blogtalk radio
Phil Berg

Lindsay, my friend, there is nothings going on behind the scenes, nothing has changed since the last time you saw me. We're just on a completely different page here, political correctness has nothing to do with it.

I know you don't understand how I can have the views I've expressed over the years and still be supportive of an Obama candidacy, I'm equally at a loss as to how you could possibly like Sarah Palin. Her brand of populism is totally unique to presidential politics. I've never seen anything like it and I find it terrifying. I think it's MILES worse than anything the Obama-Biden ticket runs on. We are not going to see eye to eye on this ever. I disagree with your assessment of Obama's foreign policy and I don't think he's anti-american. I've argued that as best I can so far.

What will really piss you off is that despite the fact that I disagree with him on about 90 percent of the issues I don't just view him as a necessary evil. I like him about as much as you like Palin and hate Palin about as much as you hate Obama. Mull that one over!

It's unfortunate that we are on opposite sides of the most important issue of the day but at least I have the company of Hitchens and Chris Buckley to make me feel somewhat validated. I think you and I may just have to agree to disagree on this one. We're no closer to a mutual understanding than we were at the start of this thread and I don't think we're going to get any closer.

Hope you're having fun in the US. Is it California you're in right now? Saddamy galore I bet! You'll need all the vodka you can get your hands on to bear through it.

I'm not arguing that more is *necessarily* better, but I do argue that superior is definitely necessary. Perhaps I misunderstood you to be arguing for parity on principle, and the notion that there are no good and bad guys in the equation. I had no problem with Reagan negotiating with Gorbachev from a position of strength. I like the concept of the anti-nuke shield but have no expertise in the matter of its feasability. Since it's going ahead I guess they've got it sorted.

Yes, I know now to separate you out from the anarcho-Saddamites, though I'm still very very worried that you're having a bad influence on my good friend Matty.

Thanks, particularly for finally recognizing I'm in a separate group from your 'anarcho-Saddamites' . Of course I'm no pacifist either. Though the effect nuclear weapons are terrible, I recognize that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and having nuclear weapons of your own serves a major purpose as a deterrent to nuclear armed potential enemies.

There's something very mistaken about applying a 'more is better' approach to nuclear weaponry, however. The deterrent effect hits steeply diminishing returns after having just a few (or even one) warhead. Even if you were somehow unilaterally arming rather than engaging in/motivating an arms race, having tens of thousands of warheads instead of 'only' thousands or hundreds makes you worse off. More warheads means much more expense to create and to maintain (tritium in thermonuclear weapons only has a half life of 12 years so warheads must have maintenance every few years). More warheads means more chance of accidental 'dirty bomb' style radiation releases on your own territory, if not accidental detonation. And more warheads means more difficult-and-expensive to secure targets for theft by terrorists, especially if land based (ICBM and bomber based) nuclear forces are maintained. Past some small amount to provide deterrence, building up more nuclear weapons just drains your economy and puts your own people at greater risk.

Aaron: "It's avoiding a dangerous new arms race. Do you believe for one second that if the US put up orbital nukes that it would be alone?"
Linz: "So effing what?! Newsflash for Aaron and the anarcho-Saddamites: running an arms race against the bad guys is a *good* thing."

Bullshit. The military advantage to orbital nukes (assuming you have enough, in enough orbital patterns) is shaving a couple minutes off times to reach your target. Consider that vs:
- also having hundreds more warheads in space pointed at us
- picking our pockets still more to pay for this
- objects in orbit, especially low earth orbit (where you actually have orbital times low enough to improve your strike time) will fall back to earth, at best being a radiation concern
- or potential for detonation
- or salvageable by dangerous States or terrorists
Having hundreds or thousands of nuclear warheads in orbit would make the world far worse for the good guys.

Aaron

It's avoiding a dangerous new arms race. Do you believe for one second that if the US put up orbital nukes that it would be alone?

So effing what?! Newsflash for Aaron and the anarcho-Saddamites: running an arms race against the bad guys is a *good* thing.

I'm used to this pacifist shit from you, Aaron, and believe in your sincerity and admire your eloquence, erudition and intelligence nonetheless. I'm depressed, though, to see my friend Matty succumbing to such leftie pro-Obama PC crap and can't quite figure it out. Is there something going on behind the scenes I don't know about?

Sandi: "Not weaponising space, retarding the development of any weaponry whether it be nuclear or not, is no different than sticking ones head in the sand."

It's avoiding a dangerous new arms race. Do you believe for one second that if the US put up orbital nukes that it would be alone?

Sandi: "You mean that Russia investing £100 billion "for rearmament over the next eight years","

Your article isn't about nuclear armament, and is not relevant to tactical nukes. If you think developing new low-yield nukes is somehow necessary, please explain.

Aaron: "US and Russia agreed to no orbital, suborbital, etc. nuclear weapons."
Sandi: "Agreements and treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on."

If you think you have any evidence that Russia has put deployed orbital or suborbital nuclear weapons in violation of SALT or START, let me know. No, forget that, just let the CIA know.

Aaron

retarding the development of any weaponry whether it be nuclear or not, is no different than sticking ones head in the sand.

Either you are deadly serious in defending your freedom or you do not value your freedom to be worthy of such.

US and Russia agreed to no orbital, suborbital, etc. nuclear weapons . Agreements and treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on. Neville Chamberlain proved that.

Even developing new low yield nukes would (we can stamp our feet that it shouldn't, but it would) cause a renewed nuclear arms race with Russia and likely China, and motivate further nuclear proliferation.

You mean that Russia investing £100 billion "for rearmament over the next eight years", isn't proliferation and Russia's joint military exercises with fellow ideologists China, poses no significant threat?

Not weaponizing space does not make him some pacifist - but neither is it a particularly interesting thing to say. Ever since the SALT treaties of the 70s, US and Russia agreed to no orbital, suborbital, etc. nuclear weapons, and no president since has seriously considered going back on this.

Talking to Russia about reducing nuclear arms and 'taking the ICBMs off hair-trigger alert' are good things. A lot of conservatives and even Objectivists have an undeserved idolatry of Reagan, but one of the truly positive things he did was talks leading up to the 'trust-but-verify' START treaty (finally signed by Bush I). This bilateral reduction got rid of 80% of the warheads pointed at us, at the 'expense' of us also having far fewer hard-to-maintain-and-secure warheads of our own. And though we survived even the Cold War without the apocalypse triggered by a false alarm, there were some close calls we could do without.

Not developing new nuclear weapons sounds to me like just setting him apart from the Bush II talk (I believe that's all it's been) about developing new 'tactical' nuclear weapons such as bunker busters. Bush's ideas were stupid technically, and disastrous diplomatically. We had plenty of tactical nuclear weapons in the nuke-happy 50s and 60s, with the purpose of destroying Soviet tank columns. They would have been essentially worthless for their planned purpose; unlike high yield nukes, at low yields gamma/neutron radiation dominates heat and blast, making them primarily gruesome people killers rather than effective at 'busting' hard targets. Further, there is no diplomatic line between tactical and strategic. Using low yield nukes against US/Russia/UK/France/China/Israel/India/Pakistan would expect a very high yield response. Even developing new low yield nukes would (we can stamp our feet that it shouldn't, but it would) cause a renewed nuclear arms race with Russia and likely China, and motivate further nuclear proliferation. W's talk of developing new tactical nukes is insane, and anyone should be happy to distance themselves from it.

Aaron

Not weaponising space, slowing development of combat systems and not developing any new nukes does not equal disarming America.

"I will not weaponise space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To keep that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons"

Obama will demand that all Americans take off their clothes and face the rest of the world naked.

The virus runs deep in the Jimmy Carter with rhythm. Yours is a false analogy and must have been meant to amuse.

As it happens, I met my "influential grandfather" but once, fleetingly, and didn't attend his funeral, with or without preconditions.

Still, I'm clearly missing something that the Obamessianics are tuning into:

Matty Orchard invites discussion: "Something that I have never seen mentioned here is that his mother (and perhaps even his father at the time of his birth) appears to have been an atheist."

Hmmm. It doesn't matter what the facts may be, Matty. For Sandi, for example, Obama is a Muslim. Period.

If his father and mother were atheists, and he was raised in a non-religious manner, and calls himself a Christian, well . . . it means his secret Muslim plot to impose evul on America is all the more sinister.

There is a word for folks who don't bother with reality, who don't check their assumptions against reality, who don't back down from clear evidence that their opinions are based on crappy evidence: wingnut.

I read a post from a wingnut on the Washington Post site today. The gist was that the Mainstream Media is faking all the polls to demoralize the McCain voters. Faking polls for the Muslim terrorist.

Note that Lindsay said he wouldn't bother looking at the references you posted, references that would drain his pot of the unsupported allegations about Ayers' deep terrorist friendship with and influence over Obama.

Note also recent polls that show McCain losing ground among voters for raising the Ayers/terrorist issue at length.

In any case, the evul socialist conspirator media thugs -- New York Times -- released a new lying Muslim traitor poll today. Obama is at 53%, McCain is at 39%.

I respect your reasoned and reasonable posts here on the subject of Obama. I hope that there is a sizable group of folk who are thinking about what you discuss, even if the more vocal folk insist that Osama bin Biden is/are traitorous treasonite lying scumbag socialist liars and bloodsuckers.

I foresee a great increase in American power and influence in the world in the aftermath of an Obama victory. American ideals are very powerful, very attractive to folks on every continent. For the time of the Obama honeymoon, I hope he has the guts and the foresight to use this moral power to serve American interests in the world.

This is the one part of the power equation that escapes those who equate Obama with Demon. America will gain power with his win. It will be at its strongest morally, at its most persuasive, at its most attractive. This is the time for bold US moves to solve some geo-political problems.

The reason: folks want to love America. They want their ideals of America to be realized. They want to be friends and allies with America, and to work together in the world for the ideals it represents.

I truly hope Obama knows he has but a brief time to use his sword in the world on behalf of America's interests. To rally the world to America's side in the war for western dominance. I suspect that those who reflexively hate Obama simply do not understand the kind of moral power he will have in the immediate aftermath of his inauguration.

For the wingnuts, an Obama victory will be a tragic, horrifying nightmare. Wingnuts hardly can conceive that his taking the presidency can illustrate, yet again, that America is a great and hopeful nation, a mighty nation, a nation not only to be feared, but to be loved and admired and willingly followed.

For wingnuts who see Obama as treasonous scum, the spectactle of an immensely popular American president basking in international approbation will be merely a sign of the end times.

I pity this sour, crabbed, paranoid attitude.

WSS

Something that I have never seen mentioned here is that his mother (and perhaps even his father at the time of his birth) appears to have been an atheist.

Discuss.

"That's right. When Obama was ten years old, Ayers' organization was planning violent demonstrations. When Perigo was ten years old, his grandfather was the leader of the New Zealand Communist Party.

And Perigo met with his influential grandfather. Repeatedly. Without preconditions. He even attended his funeral. "

The virus runs deep in the Jimmy Carter with rhythm. Yours is a false analogy and must have been meant to amuse.

And why is so critical to choose between welfarist with inclinations toward Islam and welfarist with inclination toward Christian fundamentalism? The outcome will be the same: religious welfarism.

First, it must be noted that it is MORAL under Islam to side against Muslims, side with non-Muslims, befriend non-Muslims, and lie about one's beliefs in the furtherance of Muslims. It is part of jihad and it is a strategy a Muslim uses when he is outnumbers, while he moves to put himself in a strong position, at which time he comes out.

That said, I am as bothered by anyone with Mr. Obama's Muslim name and Muslim heritage. I am concerned about giving any former Muslim the benefit of the doubt.

I think Obama is a FORMER Muslin, and after all, he did join an anti-American racist church at his wife's behest. This is more damning to my mind that Obama's Muslim heritage.

Democrats should at least have nominated someone who comes from a tradition of loving America. With Obama, lip-service aside, there are big questions. His wife, at least, first became proud to be an American when her husband began running for President. That should tell you something about the values in the Obama hosuehold. The sermons in his Christian church should tell you something about his values. The values of his mentor and the man in whose house he launched his political career's values should give you some clue.

This fellow wants wholesale change, and NOT in the direction of freedom and capitalism--in the direction of socialism and enforced government equality (redistribution of wealth).

The chickens are coming home to roost--you cannot teach an entire generation of Americans that equality is more important then freedom, and that the government will fix things for you, and NOT expect a candidate like Obama to come along.

Remember, any criticism along the lines of the above will be discounted as racist and inimical to multiculturalism. McCain's only hope at this point is that EITHER a bunch of Americans not reflected in the polls understand the above, OR that a bunch of secretly white racists will come out to the polls. How the electoral college votes is another matter entirely.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

On 1: Fair point on Petraeus, I wasn't willing to state point blank that the general was echoing Obamas position initially because I had only read headlines. I concede that he is not in lock step with Obama. I still don't see how unconditional talks or meetings or whatever are inherently bad policy.

"Obama was not "cautious" about the Surge - he opposed it. Of
course he had to say to Bill O'Reilly it had succeeded "beyond our
wildest dreams," but he's carried on ever since as though it were a bad
thing, the piece of shit."

He opposed it as presented and maintains disagreements. His consistent, stated position is that a troop surge plan should have included measures to put pressure on the Iraqi government to take over in the near future, i.e. specific timetable (or time horizons) for troop withdrawal. He didn't just give credit to the surge on O'Reilly. If you ask me, I think he would be likely to keep Petraeus on if he becomes president.

"I've no idea what you're you're on about re Mrs Biden or Mrs Obama. I
suppose there's some pomo-gotcha thing going on, which disappoints me,
but my answer is no."

Todd Palin was a member of the Alaskin Independence Party. A group which wishes to have Alaska secede from the United States. My cheeky point is that if your going to hold Mrs. Obamas off the cuff statement against the Obama ticket it's only fair to hold Palins association with this outfit (she addressed their annual conference via video as governor) against her ticket. I don't see how I'm delving in to post-modernism here.

"Ayers may not have said "Wow!" but he donated money..."

I'll assume he did. Not surprising. He was active in Chicago politics and would most likely donate to democrats over republicans. How does this prove anything about the closeness of them personally?

"...And he hosted the first campaign launch."

That's an over statement at the very least. It implies Ayers organized some kind of fund raiser specifically for Obama. He did not. Obama attended an event at his home. At that event it was announced that Obama planned to run for the state senate. I just don't find that damning. Here's the most objective account of their relationship I can find. It's a none issue as far as I'm concerned.

"Obama didn't know about his terrorism or his world-view? Gimme a break!"

I'm sure he must have heard about his past at some point in Chicago but at the time he attended this 'launch' function? Completely plausible he didn't know. Anyway, moot point.

" His bitch-wife betrayed her and hubby's motivation. Now they're scampering to cover up, aided by "useful idiots." "

What?

"McCain's campaign is not demanding Obama ads be withdrawn or else (insert de-licensing threat here)."

You wont find any defense of the Obama campaigns media intimidation from me but I don't think Palins refusal to hold a press conference is excusable and the McCain campaigns barring of the media at rallies and so on strikes me as an equal offense.

I'm not going to check out all the stuff you're asking me to since I refuse to waste that amount of time on that shithead. Off the top of my head:

1) Re unconditional talks: the key word is "unconditional" and at top-level. From memory Obama said he'd be prepared to meet unconditionally, personally, as president, with Ahmadinejad. What Petraeus is talking about, part of a counter-insurgency strategy, is far removed from such crap.

2) Obama was not "cautious" about the Surge - he opposed it. Of course he had to say to Bill O'Reilly it had succeeded "beyond our wildest dreams," but he's carried on ever since as though it were a bad thing, the piece of shit.

3) I've no idea what you're you're on about re Mrs Biden or Mrs Obama. I suppose there's some pomo-gotcha thing going on, which disappoints me, but my answer is no.

4) Ayers may not have said "Wow!" but he donated money. And he hosted the first campaign launch. Obama didn't know about his terrorism or his world-view? Gimme a break! His bitch-wife betrayed her and hubby's motivation. Now they're scampering to cover up, aided by "useful idiots."

5) McCain's campaign is not demanding Obama ads be withdrawn or else (insert de-licensing threat here).

I am not arguing the merits of McCain. Since the second debate I regard him as disgusting. But Obama is beyond disgusting, and when push came to shove, I would vote against him. Which in the current context means voting McCain.

Be assured, Matty, that your boy will win, so you don't need to fret. It is the Age of the Airhead. I hope he wreaks enough damage to wake people up before it's too late, though I fear otherwise.

"I understand (well, I don't, actually) that you have the bit between your teeth trying to prove that Linz is a treasonist"

I am not trying to prove you are a treasonist by any reasonable standard. I'm trying to illustrate that your standard is unreasonable. To commit treason you have to intentionally conspire to hurt your nation. Your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if someone votes for a candidate that you deem to be harmful to America they are guilty of treason, even if that person believes their vote will help America. I don't agree with that definition of treason. IF I did then I would view you as guilty of treason. It's hypothetical.

"Obama did more than "brush shoulders" with Ayers. His first senate
campaign was launched at Ayers' home, and Ayers donated money to
subsequent Obama campaigns."

Wikipedia accounts for the basic facts of his interaction with Ayers. Check it out and take from it what you will. My personal take is that he interacted with an un-repentant shit who had, since his actions in the Vietnam era, become a respected figure in the Chicago community. Should he have become so respected? Certainly not if he was as vocally un repentant about his actions as he was after sept 11th. We don't know that he was, it's reasonable to assume he kept quiet about his past during these meetings and that everyone else ignored it. It's reasonable to assume Obama didn't know about Ayers involvement in the weather underground right from the get go so it becomes very hard to judge him for what he did and did not do while serving on boards with this man and attending the same functions as him. Your assertion that his 1st senate campaign was launched at his home is only arguably true technically and certainly over stated. It implies that Ayers was one of the key people to help him launch his political career. The facts point towards a less dramatic situation.

Evidently it's not a matter of Ayers finding Obama, saying 'Wow you're great! I'm going to launch in to the political scene!' It's a matter of Obama attending a function at Ayers house and being introduced by an incumbent senator with a political endorsement. I don't find this particularly seedy on the face of it and no details have come up to convince me that I should. Ayers and Obamas personal interaction strikes me as limited. There is no evidence that they ever talked to one another about issues that had anything to do wih Ayers past atrocities. Evidence that Ayers was ever a political adviser to Obama is non existent. Considering the scrutiny that has been applied to the relationship I think that's rather telling.

"I believe there are McCain ads running as we speak that point this out,
or at least mention the friendship in general terms, which Obama is
attempting to have banned by invoking the threat of revoking the FCC
licenses of anyone who screens them, the fascist prick."

You might be talking about something else but a quick google shows that Obamas campaign has written in to radio stations on two accounts challenging radio ads from third party groups attacking Obama on guns and Ayers respectively. Yes they did invoke threats based on FCC regulations. The FCC is an inherently fascist organization that neither candidates plan on weakening or abolishing. I agree that Obama should butt out but his actions don't show a striking contrast to McCain.

"Mrs Obama's "slip" about not being proud of anything about America
until the point of her husband's nomination said way more than you're
prepared to acknowledge."

Dare I invoke the word 'subjective'? I'll pose the same question I asked Sandi to you: If either Michelle Obama or Jill Biden were at any point in their adult lives members of an organization that wished to secede from the United States of America, would that make their tickets Anti-American, or even disqualify their tickets from the presidency?

If you were to address only one thing in this post I would want it to be that question.

"As for Petraeus saying unconditional negotiations with filth are OK, show me where he said such a thing."

William beat me to the punch. Take from that what you will.

"If one is going to deliver the message you mention, it's not necessary
for president to sit down with president, no prerequisites."

My point is that your opposed to meetings because you think it will be a matter of out right appeasement. I'm against appeasement but not against unconditional talks.

"Obama opposed the Surge but now uses its success, without acknowledging it..."

Acknowledged it explicitly on The O'Reilly Factor. Still maintains the surge plan should have emphasized the Iraqi governments responsibility to take over in the near future. Even absolute supporters of the surge were skeptical over weather it would work so his cautiousness isn't something I feel he can be condemned for.

Having acknowledged the surge has thus far been a success and that he was wrong in his doubts, he would like to have the same strategy applied to Afghanistan. Treason?

To be fair to the fustigating Perigo . . . here is the response of the major ScumDem candidates (all treasonettes, in the Perigonian political cosmology) answering a Youtube question on meeting with foreign bad guys. Answering the question are Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

Careful readers (Sandi, you are excused) will note that the McCain meme adds the notion of negotiations.

Meetings are negotiations. Right.

Careful readers (Sandi, you may keep reading the supplementary comic book on Obama Dracula) will note how some treasonous former communists further extrapolate meetings to negotiations to surrendering.

As for the treasonesque idea that Ayers influences Obama . . . consider that the Pope of SOLO has yet to denounce the Marxist Perigos who spawned him. Indeed, he still talks to them! In fact, he may actually have sat down to negotiate surrender with them at the last Perigonian Thanksgiving.

That's right. When Obama was ten years old, Ayers' organization was planning violent demonstrations. When Perigo was ten years old, his grandfather was the leader of the New Zealand Communist Party.

And Perigo met with his influential grandfather. Repeatedly. Without preconditions. He even attended his funeral.

Is that the kind of Objectivist you want running the world's foremost Objectivist think tank? Isn't it rational to think that Perigo still supports the Weather Underground Commie terrorists?

Some might say that Obama has denounced Ayers as 'despicable' -- but why should we believe his latter-day turnabout any more than we believe Perigo's very convenient denunciation of his Marxist heritage?

So there you have it. Perigo at ten years old, schooled in commie terror at his family compound. Do you think that kind of training (directly comparable to Obama's, who was ten years old in Indonesia while Ayers led the Underground in America) in commie terror traitorousnessosity didn't take?

If you do, Sandi has a Obamacula t-shirt for you!

Traitors.

WSS

Treasonous Lindsay Perigo demonstrates his loose grip on facts, by repeating McCain canards about Obama. In a challenge to treasonite Matty Orchard, the treason-happy Pope of SOLO demands of the treasonaut Orchard that he fork up treasonosity from Central Command honcho Petraeus.

Although the Pope has little familiarity with the US election beyond reciting wingnut talking points about treasonette sick fuck scumDem traitors, he has a point. What did Commander Petraeus have to say about negotiating with enemies?

Petraeus also came out unambiguously in his talk at Heritage for opening communications with America’s adversaries, a position McCain is attacking Obama for endorsing. Citing his Iraq experience, Petraeus said, “You have to talk to enemies.” He added that it was necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors.

Petraeus favorably cited the example of one of his British deputies, who in a previous assignment had to negotiate with Martin McGuiness of the Irish Republican Army, responsible for killing some of the British commander’s troops. The British officer, Petraeus said, occasionally wanted to “reach across the table” and choke his former adversary but understood that such negotiations were key to ending a war.

Wall Street Journal Poll: Obama 52%, McCain 40%.

WSS

I understand (well, I don't, actually) that you have the bit between your teeth trying to prove that Linz is a treasonist, but here are some salient points to consider in response to your own:

Obama did more than "brush shoulders" with Ayers. His first senate campaign was launched at Ayers' home, and Ayers donated money to subsequent Obama campaigns. I believe there are McCain ads running as we speak that point this out, or at least mention the friendship in general terms, which Obama is attempting to have banned by invoking the threat of revoking the FCC licenses of anyone who screens them, the fascist prick. I haven't seen the ads, but I'm delighted McCain is going after the bastard about his anti-Americanism. Mrs Obama's "slip" about not being proud of anything about America until the point of her husband's nomination said way more than you're prepared to acknowledge.

As for Petraeus saying unconditional negotiations with filth are OK, show me where he said such a thing. If one is going to deliver the message you mention, it's not necessary for president to sit down with president, no prerequisites.

Obama opposed the Surge but now uses its success, without acknowledging it, to beat up on Bush re Afghanistan. That's being a sick, treasonous fuck. As if he gave a damn about anything other than his own demagoguery, really. A poster-boy for American Airhead.

You just have to do better research:

"In any case, deploring these convictions in Hawaii was an African-American poet and journalist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis, who was certainly in the orbit of the CP – if not a member – and who was born in Kansas and spent a good deal of his adult life in Chicago, before decamping to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson. Eventually, he befriended another family – a Euro-American family – that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago. In his best selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father’, the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as "Frank" as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation – though you would never know it from reading so-called left journals of opinion. At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, "Living the Blues" and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside."

from:

Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party

By Gerald Horne

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5047/1/32/

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

Matty, thanks for your link to Snopes.  As well as secretly being a Muslim, Obama is also the Anti-Christ and is stupid enough to hold phones upside down.

I read in a 'FW:FW:FW' email, so it's true!

"Why, Obama is not muslim?"

Did you miss the controversy over his attendance at a particular Christian church??? Exposed to Islam in childhood through his father? Sure. To how much of an extent? Probably not much seeing as nothing troubling has materialized over the past 18 or so months of intense scrutiny.

But seriously, you were following the Wright story weren't you? If so that somewhat gets in the way of th Moslim argument does it not?

"Perhaps he has no socialist agenda"

He does. McCains no better on socialism and on populism the McCain-Palin ticket is far worse.

"I am especially eager to be enlightened with regards something positive
that Obama can bring to his adopted home (can he call America his home
even when he has been served papers challenging his birthright)?"

If Obama wasn't legally entitled to citizenship (from birth) his opponents would be all over it, This is just dribble. Besides, what's with all of this birthright shit? Didn't you just post a thread condemning socialism?

"If Obama is unworthy of such unsubstantiated malice"

Are you admitting it's unsubstantiated? Or mocking the claim? Because I think some pretty decent arguments have been presented.

"(and that is of course to forgive his wife for publicly hating the very country that he seeks presidency of)"

She misspoke, and she never ever said she hated the country.

Question: If either Michelle Obama or Jill Biden were at any point in their adult lives members of an organization that wished to secede from the united states of america, would that make their tickets anti-american, or even disqualify their tickets from the presidency?

Why, Obama is not muslim?

Perhaps he has no socialist agenda and even though (as claimed) his father was a communist (which has nothing to do with the title of his book "The Dreams of My Father"), I am open to hear the contrary.

I admit that I am so very ignorant of Obama in the sense of virtue which I fail to recognise along with any positive qualities the man may happen to possess. If you know of any, I would be rather grateful to hear them.

I am especially eager to be enlightened with regards something positive that Obama can bring to his adopted home (can he call America his home even when he has been served papers challenging his birthright)?

If Obama is unworthy of such unsubstantiated malice (and that is of course to forgive his wife for publicly hating the very country that he seeks presidency of) please enlighten me lest I be more hysteric in my disgust.

"Which part of, "I will sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions"
is not pacifist?"

I believe even Gen. Petraeus is moving in that direction but I'll have to check his actual quote from yesterday to confirm. Anyway, do you really have a problem with that? What if Obama came in to this unconditional talk and said "Ok here's the deal, stop developing these nukes, and prove to us you have or Iran will no longer be on the map this time next week." Would you object to that meeting on the grounds that there were no preconditions? My guess is no, I think you object to the talks because you assume it will be a matter of giving Iran whatever they want and taking there word on everything without any scrutiny ala Chamberlin.

Regardless of weather or not you really do on principle object to any meeting of any nature without pre condition is beside the point though. If you do not then we agree. If you do I think you're wrong and your position is more likely to lead to Americas destruction than mine. So applying your logic to my politics, you're guilty of treason.

"Coming from a friend of unapologetic terrorist William
Ayers?"

Friend is a huge stretch given the information we have. He rubbed shoulders with him in Chicago, as did basically all politically involved people in Chicago, all on issues that had nothing to do with domestic terrorism. Ayers is piece of shit but I don't acknowledge any significance in Obamas encounters with him. There is no evidence Obama remained in contact with him or was ever advised by him.

"How will that be more effective in dealing with Islamofascism?
How will waving the white flag in Iraq?"

Surrender to who, the government they have established? Al Queda is growing in Afghanistan, deflecting resources from that region to a region that could be near ready for a transition to independence would strengthen Al Queda and Islamo-fascism. Supporting such a policy makes you guilty of treason by your standards.

Lindsay, while I do indeed respect the threat of radical Islam I happen to think Obama's foreign policy will be more effective at dealing with it. I would never support a pacifist platform.

Which part of, "I will sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions" is not pacifist? Coming from a friend of unapologetic terrorist William Ayers? How will that be more effective in dealing with Islamofascism? How will waving the white flag in Iraq?

The photo is real (look it up on snopes) but it's still a hilariously cheap shot.

Lindsay, while I do indeed respect the threat of radical Islam I happen to think Obama's foreign policy will be more effective at dealing with it. I would never support a pacifist platform.

If I were to share your logical system which defines treason (I don't) Then you would be guilty of treason in my eyes. You support a policy that would hurt America and strengthen militant Islam. therefore you are an anti American Bin Laden lover.

I am unfamiliar with the type of reasoning that can issue forth the following two claims:

-- Obama appeases Islamophascist terrorists.
-- Obama supports incursions into Pakistan to bomb the fuck out of Waziri supporters of Osama bin Laden.

Another pair:

-- correcting Sandi makes Matty a postmodern masturbator
-- Sandi has all the details wrong

I submit that Lindsay Perigo has substituted boilerplate, one-size-fits-all denunciations for reasoning.

Treasonist, pomowanker, appeaser, Saddamite, blah blah blah. Such sloppy, lazy, empty sloganeering does not an argument make.

I expect better from the pope of SOLO than the following authoritative statement:

"Who votes for Obama is a treasonist."

What precisely is the difference between that categorical annunciation and the following?

"Who votes for the Republicans doesn't understand Objectivism."

As far as I can see, not much difference. Two opinion leaders don the pontiff robes and denounce. One is a fatwa, one is a papal bull.

--
WSS

"Obama backed ruthless, foreign thug and set up direct Senate contact for Kenyan opposition leader....Raila Odinga, who later was appointed prime minister after his election loss was followed by widespread, deadly violence that destroyed or damaged 800 Christian churches" (I mean to say - how more Catholic can one be)?

Okay, let's see if we have this straight. If some wingnut receives a forwarded email in which is stated that Sandi has exchanged secret correspondence with Kikuya Christianists, I can draw a connection between Sandi and Timothy McVeigh's remnant group. I can then forthrightly state the slander that Sandi is a warrior christianist thug who secretly supports leads a campaign to bomb New Zealand government offices and libertarian post-natal abortion clinics.

It is similar loose and loopy associations that connects Odinga and Obama and suggest a black-ops planting of Obama in the White House to destroy America from within.

The online wingnut press is the source of Sandi's paranoid fantasies, it seems, her supposed plot supported by a supposed email from Obama setting up top-level connections.

The 'email' in question is ridiculed here. Below is the full text. Paranoid readers with note that it uses Obama's exact phrasing.

With regard to the cryptic coda to Sandi's hurried cut and paste job above, since I have it on wingnut authority that Sandi was baptised into the Anglican faith, it is no leap to announce that Sandi is actually a secret agent for the Exclusive Brethren's military corps, who plans to institute Mosaic Law by force upon the western world. If I can gin up an email from an 'insider,' this will clinch the deal.

So, Sandi, now that I have proved you are a terrorist christianist princess intent on destroying New Zealand by violence, can we go back to our regular programming, in which you claim Obama is actually a vampire?

Thank you.

WSS

Super-secret email linking the two terrorist Muslims --

Hello brother,

Faithfully,
Obama.

Concern about objective reality is pomowanking.

Evasion of/indifference to the threat of Islamofascism, and Obama's willingness to appease it, notwithstanding his latter-day protestations of hawkishness, is pomowanking. Nothing Orwellian in pointing that out.

Why accept the Muslim mindset though? Surely you are not going to hold Ayaan Hirsi Ali's circumstances of birth against her?

Comeon Matty, the *glaring* difference is that Ayan is an activist against the faith she was raised with. A passionate activist with death threats hanging over her for her troubles.

Obama is a chronic sympathizer and appeaser, plain and simple. Ayan never fails to point out how evil the beliefs of Islam are.

Concern about objective reality is pomowanking. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Aaron

I used to suspect you were a somewhat addled hysteric on the subject of Islam, Sandi, and far too sloppy and biased to check the information you post to SOLO. Now I know my suspicions were well founded.

"Obama backed ruthless, foreign thug and set up direct Senate contact for Kenyan opposition leader....Raila Odinga, who later was appointed prime minister after his election loss was followed by widespread, deadly violence that destroyed or damaged 800 Christian churches" (I mean to say - how more Catholic can one be)?

The Obama Nation

Memorandum of understand between HON. Raila Amolo Odinga representing the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) and the National Muslim Leaders Forum (NAMLEF)

Documents here

Hon Raila Odinga shall:

1. Embrace NAMLEF (Muslim Forum) totally as his partner of choice In seeking the backing of the Muslim community,
2. Upon successful election and serving as the President of Kenya:
Continue to embrace NAMLEF as his partner of choice, providing support and sustain relations with it and the Muslim community.
Embark on the radical transformation of Kenya
Clauses include:

Within 1 year establish a shariah court within every Kenyan divisional headquarter.

Close down factories which process swine and other haram products in regions populated by muslims

Impose an immediate ban on women's public dressing styles that are considered immoral to the muslim faith

It's not unusual that some folk despise Obama for his professed faith, for his politics or even for his racial heritage. It's also not unusual for wingnuts who despise Obama to invent bullshit claims.

One such item of bullshit is Obama's attendance at a radical islamic school (a Wahabbi Madrassa).

Another such bit of bullshit is that Obama falsely claimed attendance at a Catholic school in Indonesia.

Another lump of shit is the Photoshopped mashup of Obama turning his back on the flag. The image crudely jumbles at least three separate images.

I used to suspect you were a somewhat addled hysteric on the subject of Islam, Sandi, and far too sloppy and biased to check the information you post to SOLO. Now I know my suspicions were well founded.

In any case, who gives a fiddler's fuck that Obama's mother married two muslims? Who would insist on the demented theory, against all credible evidence, that Obama is a Muslim plant?

Surely you could do bit better job of slagging Obama -- perhaps by a reasoned analysis of his words, policies, books and record.

I get the sense that you don't give a shit about truth, Sandi, or about factual accuracy, or about assembling a coherent argument -- which is sad. It sets the bar for rational discussion very low.

There might be an occasional reasonable observation or conclusion in your output here. But the amount of sloppy errors you disgorge makes the effort to identify them not worth the trouble. Crying wolf has its downside.

>plonk<

WSS

But he sure as hell, can chose his morality.

As for being an islamist, did anybody pick up Obama's blunder?

"The first school I went to in Indonesia was a Catholic school"

Fact: Obama's mother did not have just one muslim husband, she had two. She seemed to have a penchance for islam.

Fact: Both Obama's father's and Kenyan relations are muslim.

Yet Obama claims he was sent to (dare I say it) a "Catholic school" before being sent to an Madrasa? A Wahabi Madrasa, I might add.

Obama never shows any reverence to the flag because their isn't any. He was raised with different values.

Image from Atlas Shrugged Blog.

Harry Browne for president!

It has suddenly become very clear for me.

I concede there is something much more dangerous and sinister than islam.

New thread......

... to see folk who should know better, as well as those who don't, go on a pro-Obama pomowank spree based on Sandi's being wrong on parts of the letter but right on the spirit of the matter. The man's record is anti-American, in the best sense of "American." He is covering it up, and fooling/delighting anti-American pomowankers in the process. I say again that anyone who votes for this creature, or roots for him, even with everything we now know about McCain's ghastly betrayal of the free market, is, innocently or otherwise, a treasonist.

What could be more fundamental than that?

Obama's foot is firmly in one camp. "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people"

You say he was about 10 years old when he was under-going islamic indoctrination and not playing little league baseball, doing the American thing at Thanksgiving or simply hanging out at the mall. How American must be the man be?

A wolf in sheep's clothing would never take on the persona of wolf whilst wearing it, he would by nature of habit however, slip up from time to time.

"Islam is compatible with the western world"

Now on with the show,

"Obama is Muslim by default. In the muslim mindset (there is no
individual mindset according to the ummah) he was born to a muslim
father therefore he is muslim."

Why accept the Muslim mindset though? Surely you are not going to hold Ayaan Hirsi Ali's circumstances of birth against her?

"Yes, I say he is a muslim and affirm as I said in the last paragraph
he is a muslim by default. And if being born to a muslim father with
(communist aspirations I might add) isn't enough..."

It isn't

"...he was educated in a
Madrasa in Indonesia."

Not his choice, how old was he? Ten max?

"He reportedly recited a muslim prayer to the New
York Times and has been quoted as saying "the prettiest sound in the
world is the call to prayer at sunset."

I'm sure Christopher Hitchens could recite a Muslim prayer too. As you say he was exposed to the faith in his childhood so it makes sense that he would know a Muslim prayer or two. This does nothing to prove he is currently practicing Islam. If he were it would have come up by now, The Clinton campaign went through every detail of his life with intense scrutiny. Even McCain's campaign hasn't found anything new and they're being headed by Steve Schmidt, one of the best dirt diggers in the business.

The New York times quote could have easily came from McCain or any other major US politician. They all pay lip service to religion.

"Yep, I firmly give credit that he is indeed a muslim and if not
fundamental (which is hard for me to believe)"

Why?

"he is undoubtedly a
sympathiser. Unless he publicly declares himself the contrary, I give
full credit to the man that he is muslim."

He has, repeatedly. On top of his declarations he was a member of a Christian church in Chicago for two decades. There was a lot about that church in the news this year. Pretty hard to miss.

"I am continuing to learn more about the deception of islam and the
steadfast mindset in having a muslim in the white-house. Ten years
before 9/11 the Brotherhood stated its intention to attack America from
within. I take what they say very seriously."

Obama was already in the Chicago state senate when the brotherhood said that, either that or he was working as a constitutional professor or as a civil rights lawyer. This just isn't credible. Even if their attack from within plan was to win one of their operatives the presidency (Not exactly something that can just be organized) don't you think they would hedge their bets on a white guy with a normal sounding name? When I think attacking America from within I think more along the lines of infiltrating the CIA. Infiltrating the oval office would be impossible. Or about as close to impossible as conceptual possibilities get.

I would sooner believe that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition and that the pentagon was struck by a rocket. To believe Obama is a secret Al Queda operative is in that territory.

"he is a muslim by default"

Aren't you denying the man agency?  He says he is a Christian.  He says he has never been a Muslim.  Why shouldn't we take him at his word?

Also, your whole "look at these evil people who like Obama" argument falls down pretty fast when you consider some of the nutjobs who supported Reagan, or even some of the complete assholes who have supported the Libz.

My fingers are dyslexic today. Do I need Ritalin for that?

Obama is Muslim by default. In the muslim mindset (there is no individual mindset according to the ummah) he was born to a muslim father therefore he is muslim.

Yes, I say he is a muslim and affirm as I said in the last paragraph he is a muslim by default. And if being born to a muslim father with (communist aspirations I might add) isn't enough, he was educated in a Madrasa in Indonesia. He reportedly recited a muslim prayer to the New York Times and has been quoted as saying "the prettiest sound in the world is the call to prayer at sunset."

Yep, I firmly give credit that he is indeed a muslim and if not fundamental (which is hard for me to believe) he is undoubtedly a sympathiser. Unless he publicly declares himself the contrary, I give full credit to the man that he is muslim.

I am continuing to learn more about the deception of islam and the steadfast mindset in having a muslim in the white-house. Ten years before 9/11 the Brotherhood stated its intention to attack America from within. I take what they say very seriously.

Face it, who hates America more? Islam or Obama or both?

"Remember: Once a mulsim[sic] - always a muslim."

Um, no. Actually a former Muslim is an apostate, and as I understand it that gives pretty serious offense to a lot of people in Islam. Given Obama is Christian now, if he really was a self-declared practicing Muslim before I'd expect we'd actually see some radical Muslims gunning for him.

Snopes on Obama and Islam

"Seven years after Pearl Hrabour do you think that Americans would have considered an Asian man raised in Indonesia who bore a Japanese name like Mr Yamamoto, would have made it into the primaries, let alone win any of them?"

I can't really say, but if they didn't based solely on the place he was raised and his name, they'd have been prejudiced ignorant bastards.

Look, it's simply not necessary to fabricate something about Obama being Muslim. There are already tons of valid reasons based on his record, policies, and proposed policies to dislike and fear Obama, to hope he's never president, and to wish he was never senator!

Aaron

But not Mitch please (No offence Mr. Lees)

briefly skimming Muslim Americans for Obama I find no sympathies with extremism and no cause for concern. the other endorsements are all misguided and I think their endorsements come from the same place your opposition to Obama comes from. They like him because the right people hate him and you hate him because the wrong people like him. This all has nothing to do with his stated policies.

"Seven years after Pearl Hrabour do you think that Americans would have
considered an Asian man raised in Indonesia who bore a Japanese name
like Mr Yamamoto, would have made it into the primaries, let alone win
any of them?"

Probably not, but would that make opposition to him right minded, disregarding whatever views he had? Are you telling me you would have a problem with a Japanese, pro-american war hawk on account of his japaneseness?

Once again, do you personally think Obama is (or may well be) a secret Muslim, terrorist, terrorist sympathizer or a mixture of these things?

Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga told the BBC that he is a cousin of Barack Obama and Obama's Kenyan father was his maternal uncle.

Agreement between Odinga and National Muslim Leaders "The candidate recognises islam as the only true religion…….."

MEMRI TV Gaddafi – “Obama is muslim”

Remember: Once a mulsim - always a muslim.

Muslim Americans for Obama

Obama supporters in Palestine Al Jazeera

"Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split 'the enemy'. A favored tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation'; to persuade the enemy that jihad was not aimed at them but at another enemy. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all.

Reported in the Telegraph "The two women in headscarves were asked not to sit in view of cameras at a rally in Detroit on Monday, where Al Gore endorsed Hussein Obama."

Atlas Vlog. A corn, Odinga Mccain, Media - PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD: HUSSEIN BARAK*

Seven years after Pearl Hrabour do you think that Americans would have considered an Asian man raised in Indonesia who bore a Japanese name like Mr Yamamoto, would have made it into the primaries, let alone win any of them?

I remain unconvinced that Obama is a Muslim or a terrorist sympathizer.

Sandi, do you honestly beleive he's secretly schemeing to destroy America? What is your actual position on all of this?

"Quoted comment by Smegma: That translation is laughable. Its nowhere close to what hes saying. Its a standard muslim prayer"

That does it, Obama's going to lose my vote.

Aaron