WWTBAM Bored

Sir_Galahad wrote:In case you are unaware, they are under investigation for registering voter using multiples registrations, names, etc. That is, one person will register using 10 different names or other information.

TheConfessor wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:In case you are unaware, they are under investigation for registering voter using multiples registrations, names, etc. That is, one person will register using 10 different names or other information.

I'm sure that there are hundreds of Merry Men here who will be outraged to hear this shameful activity.

Evil Squirrel wrote:Acorns always matter! You want me to starve....?

Sir_Galahad wrote:First, off, I hate upgrades.

Now, I know that most of you are reasonably intelligent people (uh, oh, here it comes).

So, I put the question to you. Should it matter that Obama has very close ties to ACORN which is under investigation for voter fraud? In case you are unaware, they are under investigation for registering voter using multiples registrations, names, etc. That is, one person will register using 10 different names or other information. Much more information is available on the net if you choose to investigate. And, coincidentally (wink, wink), ACORN was scheduled to received some $20 BILLION of that initial $700 BILLION buyout. Does this not bother you?

earendel wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:First, off, I hate upgrades.

Now, I know that most of you are reasonably intelligent people (uh, oh, here it comes).

So, I put the question to you. Should it matter that Obama has very close ties to ACORN which is under investigation for voter fraud? In case you are unaware, they are under investigation for registering voter using multiples registrations, names, etc. That is, one person will register using 10 different names or other information. Much more information is available on the net if you choose to investigate. And, coincidentally (wink, wink), ACORN was scheduled to received some $20 BILLION of that initial $700 BILLION buyout. Does this not bother you?

OK, someone should give you an honest answer.

ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is an unbrella organization founded in 1970. It has local chapters in various states and communities. The misdoings to which you refer are by one of these chapters (presumably you're speaking about the accusations being leveled against ACORN in Missouri). The work of the organization as a whole shouldn't be discounted simply because of one chapter's alleged activities. I'd like to see some documentation of the claim that the organization is slated to receive $20 billion from the bailout before commenting further.

Bob Juch wrote:

earendel wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:First, off, I hate upgrades.

Now, I know that most of you are reasonably intelligent people (uh, oh, here it comes).

So, I put the question to you. Should it matter that Obama has very close ties to ACORN which is under investigation for voter fraud? In case you are unaware, they are under investigation for registering voter using multiples registrations, names, etc. That is, one person will register using 10 different names or other information. Much more information is available on the net if you choose to investigate. And, coincidentally (wink, wink), ACORN was scheduled to received some $20 BILLION of that initial $700 BILLION buyout. Does this not bother you?

OK, someone should give you an honest answer.

ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is an unbrella organization founded in 1970. It has local chapters in various states and communities. The misdoings to which you refer are by one of these chapters (presumably you're speaking about the accusations being leveled against ACORN in Missouri). The work of the organization as a whole shouldn't be discounted simply because of one chapter's alleged activities. I'd like to see some documentation of the claim that the organization is slated to receive $20 billion from the bailout before commenting further.

Who else would you expect ACORN to support? McCain?

earendel wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

earendel wrote: OK, someone should give you an honest answer.

ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is an unbrella organization founded in 1970. It has local chapters in various states and communities. The misdoings to which you refer are by one of these chapters (presumably you're speaking about the accusations being leveled against ACORN in Missouri). The work of the organization as a whole shouldn't be discounted simply because of one chapter's alleged activities. I'd like to see some documentation of the claim that the organization is slated to receive $20 billion from the bailout before commenting further.

Who else would you expect ACORN to support? McCain?

I would expect them to support Obama, but I would also expect them to do it right. The accusations in Missouri are that the organization was trying to fraudulently register voters. That's not right, I don't care which side of the political aisle one is on.

Sir_Galahad wrote:First, off, I hate upgrades.

Now, I know that most of you are reasonably intelligent people (uh, oh, here it comes).

So, I put the question to you. Should it matter that Obama has very close ties to ACORN which is under investigation for voter fraud? In case you are unaware, they are under investigation for registering voter using multiples registrations, names, etc. That is, one person will register using 10 different names or other information. Much more information is available on the net if you choose to investigate. And, coincidentally (wink, wink), ACORN was scheduled to received some $20 BILLION of that initial $700 BILLION buyout. Does this not bother you?

Obama, though, sneers at the culture of middle America. Obama is the one who said that working-class Americans "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion as a way to explain their frustrations." It was Obama whose own autobiography portrays himself not as somebody who transcends race but somebody who wallows in it, somebody not integrationist but separationist, somebody who sees white people not as able to be redeemed of racism but as people to whom racism was endemic.

"The other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart," he wrote.

Obama is the one who went to Germany and proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" while apologizing that the United States has "struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people" as "our actions around he world have not lived up to our best intentions." Somehow, though, middle Americans won't quite cotton to a presidential candidate assuming the responsibility or right to apologize to foreigners for our country's supposed sins.

Obama is the one -- The One! -- so arrogant that he said his own nomination would be "the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...." So arrogant, too, so presumptuous, that he designed his own presidential seal.

Also, a person in concert with our culture does not, as Obama did, start his political career in the house of and serve in co-leadership, closely consultative roles on two boards with the founder of a domestic terrorist organization, while using the boards to funnel money to groups that promoted racially separatist and other radical educational causes.

It is not enough to say that the former terrorist had somehow become a respected member of the community -- not when that terrorist remains so radical that even to this day, at least 13 years (and as many as 20 years) after Obama began his association with him, he defends his long-ago bombings and praises those who attack the United States.

Those boards also gave money to the church Obama attended for 20 years, a church whose pastor from the start told Obama (in Obama's own words in his autobiography) that life for a black man in America "probably never will be" safe and who spewed hatred from whites and America from his pulpit; and also to a radical American pro-Palestinian group.

Obama has praised the radical, hate-spewing Catholic priest Michael Pfleger. His wife has said she was never proud of America until her husband started winning presidential primaries. And they together have accepted what amounted to a real-estate gift from their state's most notorious convicted influence peddler.

What's worse is that Obama would impose his culture on the rest of us, through judges that go beyond the text of the Constitution to give legal status to their own expressions of "empathy." Empathy for the criminals, like the terrorist Bill Ayers, who go free on a technicality. Empathy for the people offended by a Christmas tree on the public square. Empathy for the 13-year-old who doesn't want to inform her mother about the abortion she is procuring, even though her mother would have to give approval for any other surgery for the daughter. Empathy for the student so offended by the presence of Army ROTC on campus that he demands that ROTC be banned. Empathy for the father offended that his child is exposed to the Pledge of Allegiance in school. Empathy for the horrible brute sentenced to death for the grisly rape of a little girl.

Oh, wait -- Obama says he himself did not approve of the decision outlawing the death penalty for child rapists. But that hardly exonerates him: Every one of the Supreme Court justices he says he admires, and who would be his models for future appointments, decided on their own authority that the death penalty, even for a grisly child rapist, violates their own standards of decency.

Finally, of course -- and this is an issue McCain's campaign should mention every hour of every day between now and the election -- Obama was the only member of the Illinois state senate so radically dismissive of human life that he spoke on the senate floor against a bill mandating care for babies who survived "botched" abortions. Obama's position was beyond despicable; it was monstrous. It puts him so far outside of the mainstream of American culture that he might as well be in his own moral desert.

danielh41 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:First, off, I hate upgrades.

Now, I know that most of you are reasonably intelligent people (uh, oh, here it comes).

So, I put the question to you. Should it matter that Obama has very close ties to ACORN which is under investigation for voter fraud? In case you are unaware, they are under investigation for registering voter using multiples registrations, names, etc. That is, one person will register using 10 different names or other information. Much more information is available on the net if you choose to investigate. And, coincidentally (wink, wink), ACORN was scheduled to received some $20 BILLION of that initial $700 BILLION buyout. Does this not bother you?

Obama's tie to ACORN is just one of the little things about Obama that voters should be concerned about. By itself, it's not that big of a deal. But when you look at all of Obama's past associations, it paints a very troubling picture of him. Here's a quote from an article I read today. It doesn't even mention ACORN, but people have to take it into account with all the other things that are wrong with and about Barack Obama. When you consider what Obama stands for, then a reasonable person can realize that, of course, Obama would be associated with an organization with multiple voter fraud violations...

Obama, though, sneers at the culture of middle America. Obama is the one who said that working-class Americans "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion as a way to explain their frustrations." It was Obama whose own autobiography portrays himself not as somebody who transcends race but somebody who wallows in it, somebody not integrationist but separationist, somebody who sees white people not as able to be redeemed of racism but as people to whom racism was endemic.

"The other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart," he wrote.

Obama is the one who went to Germany and proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" while apologizing that the United States has "struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people" as "our actions around he world have not lived up to our best intentions." Somehow, though, middle Americans won't quite cotton to a presidential candidate assuming the responsibility or right to apologize to foreigners for our country's supposed sins.

Obama is the one -- The One! -- so arrogant that he said his own nomination would be "the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...." So arrogant, too, so presumptuous, that he designed his own presidential seal.

Also, a person in concert with our culture does not, as Obama did, start his political career in the house of and serve in co-leadership, closely consultative roles on two boards with the founder of a domestic terrorist organization, while using the boards to funnel money to groups that promoted racially separatist and other radical educational causes.

It is not enough to say that the former terrorist had somehow become a respected member of the community -- not when that terrorist remains so radical that even to this day, at least 13 years (and as many as 20 years) after Obama began his association with him, he defends his long-ago bombings and praises those who attack the United States.

Those boards also gave money to the church Obama attended for 20 years, a church whose pastor from the start told Obama (in Obama's own words in his autobiography) that life for a black man in America "probably never will be" safe and who spewed hatred from whites and America from his pulpit; and also to a radical American pro-Palestinian group.

Obama has praised the radical, hate-spewing Catholic priest Michael Pfleger. His wife has said she was never proud of America until her husband started winning presidential primaries. And they together have accepted what amounted to a real-estate gift from their state's most notorious convicted influence peddler.

What's worse is that Obama would impose his culture on the rest of us, through judges that go beyond the text of the Constitution to give legal status to their own expressions of "empathy." Empathy for the criminals, like the terrorist Bill Ayers, who go free on a technicality. Empathy for the people offended by a Christmas tree on the public square. Empathy for the 13-year-old who doesn't want to inform her mother about the abortion she is procuring, even though her mother would have to give approval for any other surgery for the daughter. Empathy for the student so offended by the presence of Army ROTC on campus that he demands that ROTC be banned. Empathy for the father offended that his child is exposed to the Pledge of Allegiance in school. Empathy for the horrible brute sentenced to death for the grisly rape of a little girl.

Oh, wait -- Obama says he himself did not approve of the decision outlawing the death penalty for child rapists. But that hardly exonerates him: Every one of the Supreme Court justices he says he admires, and who would be his models for future appointments, decided on their own authority that the death penalty, even for a grisly child rapist, violates their own standards of decency.

Finally, of course -- and this is an issue McCain's campaign should mention every hour of every day between now and the election -- Obama was the only member of the Illinois state senate so radically dismissive of human life that he spoke on the senate floor against a bill mandating care for babies who survived "botched" abortions. Obama's position was beyond despicable; it was monstrous. It puts him so far outside of the mainstream of American culture that he might as well be in his own moral desert.

Bob Juch wrote: That's not an article, it's a right-wing blog:
http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2008/10 ... -cant.html

earendel wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:First, off, I hate upgrades.

Now, I know that most of you are reasonably intelligent people (uh, oh, here it comes).

So, I put the question to you. Should it matter that Obama has very close ties to ACORN which is under investigation for voter fraud? In case you are unaware, they are under investigation for registering voter using multiples registrations, names, etc. That is, one person will register using 10 different names or other information. Much more information is available on the net if you choose to investigate. And, coincidentally (wink, wink), ACORN was scheduled to received some $20 BILLION of that initial $700 BILLION buyout. Does this not bother you?

OK, someone should give you an honest answer.

ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is an unbrella organization founded in 1970. It has local chapters in various states and communities. The misdoings to which you refer are by one of these chapters (presumably you're speaking about the accusations being leveled against ACORN in Missouri). The work of the organization as a whole shouldn't be discounted simply because of one chapter's alleged activities. I'd like to see some documentation of the claim that the organization is slated to receive $20 billion from the bailout before commenting further.

danielh41 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: That's not an article, it's a right-wing blog:
http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2008/10 ... -cant.html

I saw it on the American Spectator website. It's rather accurate, and it sums up my opinion about Obama quite well...

Bob Juch wrote: That's not an article, it's a right-wing blog:
http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2008/10 ... -cant.html

Rexer25 wrote:It's an opinion piece. It's accurate in that in tells you the author's feelings. It doesn't have to be accurate as far as the facts go. I don't think it's a particular good opinion piece because the arguments are not stated in a way to make you think. You're either enthusiastically agreeing with him, or vehemently opposed. I see no point to such a waste of bandwidth except to make money for the web site.

Sir_Galahad wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: That's not an article, it's a right-wing blog:
http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2008/10 ... -cant.html

Bob, I am trying to understand why you are so far in the tank for Obama. Despite all the concerns you have heard and read, between ACORN, the Revs Wright and Pleger and Ayers associations, etc. you continue to praise this guy. I just don't understand it. Can you explain by leaving Bush's name and "the last eight years" out of it?

Sir_Galahad wrote:First, off, I hate upgrades.

Now, I know that most of you are reasonably intelligent people (uh, oh, here it comes).

So, I put the question to you. Should it matter that Obama has very close ties to ACORN which is under investigation for voter fraud? In case you are unaware, they are under investigation for registering voter using multiples registrations, names, etc. That is, one person will register using 10 different names or other information. Much more information is available on the net if you choose to investigate. And, coincidentally (wink, wink), ACORN was scheduled to received some $20 BILLION of that initial $700 BILLION buyout. Does this not bother you?

Bob78164 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:First, off, I hate upgrades.

Now, I know that most of you are reasonably intelligent people (uh, oh, here it comes).

So, I put the question to you. Should it matter that Obama has very close ties to ACORN which is under investigation for voter fraud? In case you are unaware, they are under investigation for registering voter using multiples registrations, names, etc. That is, one person will register using 10 different names or other information. Much more information is available on the net if you choose to investigate. And, coincidentally (wink, wink), ACORN was scheduled to received some $20 BILLION of that initial $700 BILLION buyout. Does this not bother you?

Other than ACORN being under investigation, I'm not aware of any of the other factual assertions in this post. Please provide support for (a) the claim that "Obama has very close ties to ACORN" and (b) the claim that "ACORN was scheduled to received [sic] some $20 BILLION of that initial $700 BILLION buyout." Suffice it to say that my BS-meter is redlining. --Bob

Sir_Galahad wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:First, off, I hate upgrades.

Now, I know that most of you are reasonably intelligent people (uh, oh, here it comes).

So, I put the question to you. Should it matter that Obama has very close ties to ACORN which is under investigation for voter fraud? In case you are unaware, they are under investigation for registering voter using multiples registrations, names, etc. That is, one person will register using 10 different names or other information. Much more information is available on the net if you choose to investigate. And, coincidentally (wink, wink), ACORN was scheduled to received some $20 BILLION of that initial $700 BILLION buyout. Does this not bother you?

Other than ACORN being under investigation, I'm not aware of any of the other factual assertions in this post. Please provide support for (a) the claim that "Obama has very close ties to ACORN" and (b) the claim that "ACORN was scheduled to received [sic] some $20 BILLION of that initial $700 BILLION buyout." Suffice it to say that my BS-meter is redlining. --Bob

Bob, you're savvy enough to do you're own research. It's out there if you want to find it. Most Obama supporter don't so I take that as it is.

I wasn't aware that you had a meter with your initials attached to it.

ST. LOUIS - Attorneys for the voting registration organizations ACORN and Project Vote filed an anti-discrimination voting rights suit in the U.S. Federal District court this morning, alleging the United States government is involved in "a widespread, systematic effort to disenfranchise Imaginary-Americans and deprive them of access to polls."

"Participation in our electoral process is a fundamental right, and the foundation of our democracy," said ASDF ASDFG, a spokesperson for the National Association for the Advancement of Imaginary People, one of the groups named as plaintiffs in the class action. "We will not be silent when government denies people access to the polls on the basis of color, or sex, or existential status."