Obama's radical Friends, communists, Marxists,and his racist mentors

I think some candidates actually show some character and their positions are based on their own convictions. For Obama he's been willing to sacrifice numerous long term relationships for the sake of his candidacy.

It may change a few minds of those on the fence. It doesn't matter that it won't affect the true believers. That would take someone like Ted Patrick.

"My mother always said, show me your friends and I'll show you your future."

That is so true. I love Glenn he is honest and hilarious...

Good morning you sick twisted freak

lol he's so funny.

AMR, you are too kind...(especially since I was just quoting someone else's mom!!).. Thx.

It is discouraging to me that there are people that are comfortable with a socialist agenda being pushed.

This whole socialist thing is a myth. There is no evidence Senator Obama is pushing for socialist policies. Even his healthcare plan is middle of the road. In fact, his plan is to the right of Senator Clinton's plan.

Do you guys really think you're going to win with such nonsense? McCain doesn't. That's why he went for the whole "narrative" bull@!$%#. Too bad the economy took a nosedive, and forced the candidates to focus on issues.

CA:

If you are a BO supporter, I'm not surprised you don't see what BO wants to push as anything other than what you state.  

The fact that the US Socialists and Communists USA support this candidate should be enough to give Americans pause.  Especially those who want to keep the American structure built on the American foundation.  

BO's ideology is utopian.  What ism he would pick to create this utopian can only be guessed at.  But whichever one chooses, historically it starts with "socialistic" tendencies, government taking from one to give to another, based on 'fairness' and 'the greater good.'

Guys, pile on if you like.

That's the problem with people like you ChristianAreas...You have no ideal & don't care who it is that you are supporting. Too busy implying that Anti-Obama types are not above racist suspicion.

That's funny. I actually do care, and have a good idea of what's going on. I just happen to disagree with you and your buddies. Guess that makes me ignorant. And please note where I tried to peg anyone here as a racist? I won't hold my breath.

If you are a BO supporter, I'm not surprised you don't see what BO wants to push as anything other than what you state.

That's right, because I'm an "Obamaniac" and I look to Obama as my "Messiah." No way I've been looking at the issues, and have made an intelligent and informed choice. Nah, that couldn't be it.

The fact that the US Socialists and Communists USA support this candidate should be enough to give Americans pause. Especially those who want to keep the American structure built on the American foundation.

OH MY! The far-left supports the Democrat. I'm astonished. You really want to play this game? I'm sure there are plenty of White Supremacists and radical rightwingers who support McCain. Hagee comes to mind, and there are plenty of others.

BO's ideology is utopian. What ism he would pick to create this utopian can only be guessed at. But whichever one chooses, historically it starts with "socialistic" tendencies, government taking from one to give to another, based on 'fairness' and 'the greater good.'

If that's the best you can do, I'm sorry to say, but I am unimpressed. This, along with the whole "tax-and-spend-liberal" line is as played out as the GOP. And in light of the fact that the deficit has grown to TREMENDOUS size under your glorious REPUBLICAN President -- with the help of the REPUBLICAN rubber stamp -- I think you and your buddies should focus on getting your house in order before you attempt to even step outside and cast a stone.

If that's the best you can do, I'm sorry to say, but I am unimpressed.

Yes, I know, and knew before I took the time to respond.  

Point of fact:  you challenged the assertion that BO wants to push socialist policy.  I simply pointed out that yes, indeed, he has support from those very people.  

And getting our house in order is why McCain has weathered the storm this cycle.  

Yes, I know, and knew before I took the time to respond.

Precisely my sentiments. That's exactly why I hesitated to respond at all in this seed. But here it is. In the end, I'm just preaching to the devil's choir, I guess.

Point of fact: you challenged the assertion that BO wants to push socialist policy. I simply pointed out that yes, indeed, he has support from those very people.

So, if I follow your logic, if someone supports me, I now support their way of thinking. I guess I should start supporting McCain. Maybe he'll come to his senses and get back to some of his original Maverick stances (on taxes, for instance). Did you really think that thought through?

And getting our house in order is why McCain has weathered the storm this cycle.

Excuse me while I suspend all belief. Actually, no. McCain has made it this far because he's not viewed as a typical Republican. What a lot of people don't know (yet) is that he's tethered himself to the same old Bush policies he so adamantly stood against only a number of years ago.

If you take the time to look into what these organizations want to push, and you look at what BO wants to push, you will see that they are mostly aligned.  Of course the "far left" socialists/communists are going to support the "far left" candidate.  And in his speeches he has made the case for what they support.

McCain has made it this far because he's not viewed as a typical Republican.

Yes, that is where I was coming from.  The thought being that he will get back to basics.  Which is why conservatives were supportive, if reluctantly.  I disagree that McCain is another Bush.  I don't dismiss that they have some similar stances, they are both republicans after all.  

I don't follow your second paragraph.  

Also, I'd appreciate if you would refrain from "devil's choir" verbiage.  I am and have been civil, and would like this to remain so.

Of course the "far left" socialists/communists are going to support the "far left" candidate.

The notion that Obama is "far-left" is unsupported by the facts. And if you don't like the "devil's choir" verbiage, tough. It's simply a spin on the "preaching to the choir" phrase. Didn't think it would hurt your feelings.

See, and I was just hoping to keep it all nice and everything.  

BO is far-left, supported by all the facts.  Surely you don't count his promenade to the center as proof.  Or do you?  Never-mind, it really doesn't matter. 

Since you've decided not to have an iota of respect, then I guess our time has come to an end.

Farewell.

Back up your contention with facts, or don't waste my time with your nonsense. And please spare me by not citing The National Review, a publication that counts such things Ethics Reforms as proof of Liberalism.

Since you've decided not to have an iota of respect, then I guess our time has come to an end.

Please step off the cross. And if you're feelings are hurt by such minuscule things, maybe debating these issues is not for you. But let me say this. Respect is earned, and you have not earned it with your blatant misrepresentations.

Christian...Obama's "most liberal senator" record is outlined here and elsewhere.  Google it.

Obama's "most liberal senator" record is outlined here and elsewhere. Google it.

What part of "please spare me by not citing The National Review, a publication that counts such things Ethics Reforms as proof of Liberalism" don't you understand? The methodology of the review has been brought into question. As you said -- GOOGLE IT.

"Barack Obama is 'aloof,' 'decidedly liberal' says British ambassador to US"

This is from the Socialist Brits

Because he's from Europe, he's a liberal? You do know there are Conservatives in Europe, right? I mean, you might as well quote John Bolton. In any case, got any more broad generalizations? You seem to be full of them.

Just a correction. I meant to state The National Journal, not the The National Review. Point is the same, however.

And EP, you stated:

.Obama's "most liberal senator" record is outlined here and elsewhere

Please provide proof of this "elsewhere." CNN looked at this, and The National Journal was the only source they found. I've spotted others, but none have said he is "the most liberal."

For your own edification.

Note that McCain is more to the right, than Obama is to the left. If you're going to call Obama "far-left" then I guess you have to call McCain "far-right."

The methodology used is from the very well respected journal, Political Analysis. Their site states:

Political Analysis is ranked #1 of 93 journals in Political Science according to the 2007 ISI Journal Citation Reports.

Christian,

The National Journal is described as 'leading source of nonpartisan reporting on the current political environment and emerging policy trends'.  But, since you don't accept that, there's the following:

Check Obama's record by topic from here.  He votes with his party or doesn't vote.

From Boston Globe...97% of Obama's votes are with Democrat party

British Ambassador described him thus:

He describes Mr Obama's "decidedly liberal" voting record in the Senate where "the main impression is of someone who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his presidential ambitions".

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm -- voting record by issue

Here's another one -- Obama and Biden, liberal team

Most liberals aren't insulted by the term, so just rather than deny it, own it.

The National Journal's methodology has been questioned. As I pointed out, they count such things as Ethics Reform as evidence of Liberalism. Check out the link I offered. It gives a much better assessment.

And thank you very much, I know about Obama's record, and have no problem with it. Yes, you can argue he is "decidedly liberal," but that's not a bad thing. People like Reagan and McCain, were/are decidedly Conservative. Would you argue with that? But to claim Obama is "far-left," or that he's "the most liberal Senator" is just utter nonsense, aimed at scaring voters.

Incidentally, The National Journal found that John Kerry was "the most liberal Senator" when he ran. It's no accident. Their methodology is aimed at getting such results. They're biased.

P.S. You've yet to back up the contention that Obama "is the most liberal Senator." All you and your sorts have is The National Review rating. That was my challenge to you, not to prove that Obama is Liberal/Progressive, or that he's a Democrat. Any idiot knows these things are true.

Christian Areas,
LMAO! That's all you can say! Omg... backroads was right...

kpr, the Followers could care less, and that says something about them as well.

Yup, says a lot about them.... You can't handle the truth.

The truth?  Don't make me laugh.  You rightwingers are desparate.

C Areas:     

You rightwingers are desparate.

Ummm, I noticed you were smacking on KPR for a misspelled word in the title so maybe turn about is fair play.  Perhaps you meant desperate or disparate in your reference to rightwingers?  Not sure.   On occasion it's good to remember that while pointing a finger at someone else, there are three fingers on the same hand pointing right back at you.

Are you comparing a mistake in a title to one in a comment?  Just checking.  And I assume the author -- not the seeder -- made the original mistake.

Bad assumption.

If you check you will see it was the seeder that committed the typo.

And your assumption is good? My guess is the brilliant author fixed his erratum after the seed. But hey, who care? I just thought it was funny. But by all means, keep on eating this @!$%# up. Just remember to floss.

The truth?  Don't make me laugh.  You rightwingers are desparate

I bet you didn't even read the article. Like I said it's OK if you want to be ignorant and not educate yourself with facts and instead go off what all the other Obamainiacs tell you to believe.

Like I said it's OK if you want to be ignorant and not educate yourself with facts and instead go off what all the other Obamainiacs tell you to believe.

That's incredibly clever. Perhaps, now, you can start your Wordpress blog! And forgive me, but I did not realize "ignorant" was synonymous with "repetitive." Anything else you can teach me? I'd love to be a rightwing ideologue like you.

Christian Areas,

That's incredibly clever. Perhaps, now, you can start your Wordpress blog! And forgive me, but I did not realize "ignorant" was synonymous with "repetitive." Anything else you can teach me? I'd love to be a rightwing ideologue like you.

I think that you think you're funny, but your definitely not. Here's the definition since seemed to be confused...

ignorant

1 a: destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence
2: unaware , uninformed

Just because you support Obama doesn't mean that he's infallible. It's true that these bigot people are his long time friends and mentors, you just won't accept it. Seems to me that many of you liberals have the same problem accepting the truth, you're not alone, sadly.

Just because you support Obama doesn't mean that he's infallible.

I said this when? Okay, let me humor you ideologues for a second.

Nation of Islam (NOI) leader Louis Farrakhan has a long, well-documented history of venom-laced references to the "white devils" and Jewish "bloodsuckers" who purportedly decimate America's black community from coast to coast.
In 1995 Barack Obama — along with such notables as Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright — helped organize the Farrakhan's famous Million Man March in Washington, DC. Farrakhan is a longtime friend of Jeremiah Wright. Farrakhan is also a longtime friend and ideological comrade of Michael Pfleger, who serves as pastor of Chicago's Saint Sabina Catholic Church and has been described by Barack Obama as a spriritual advisor.

They failed to mention Barack Obama denounced Farrakhan. They also never note where it is Farrakhan and Obama met. Maybe in a chat room? Is that where they became, quote, "friends"? And what exactly is so wrong with the Million Man March? From what I've read, the event was positive for African-Americans.

And the one blaming Obama for the mortgage crisis is great. Yeah, let's fault poor blacks, and not the predatory lenders, or the countless other parties involved. No, it's all because lenders were "FORCED" to lend to certain people. Never mind that the case was settled out of court. I guess the plaintiffs held a gun to their heads and said, "Loan the money or else." Yeah, that makes sense. And let's not even consider the possibility that there was some actual discrimination involved. No, that never happens. *rollseyes*

Maybe some of you rightwingers should take your own advice and really educate yourselves. Try a course in Critical Thinking.

Seriously, I can play this game all day long, but as I've indicated -- BEEN THERE, DONE THAT.

Christian Areas,

They failed to mention Barack Obama denounced Farrakhan.

Hm wonder why.... guess it didn't mean much because he still helped him organize with the Million Man March.

They also never note where it is Farrakhan and Obama met. Maybe in a chat room?

Your point is..? It doesn't really matter where they met, the point is he's associating with yet again another radical. They more than likely met through Rev. Wright

Farrakhan is a longtime friend of Jeremiah Wright.

Now you ask...

And what exactly is so wrong with the Million Man March? From what I've read, the event was positive for African-Americans.

There's nothing wrong with the Million Man March, what's wrong is the radicals that are part of it...Al Sharpton , Jeremiah Wright , & Michael Louis Pfleger. All radicals.

And the one blaming Obama for the mortgage crisis is great.

Didn't come across that one.

Yeah, let's fault poor blacks, and not the predatory lenders, or the countless other parties involved

Whaaaat...????

Maybe some of you rightwingers should take your own advice and really educate yourselves. Try a course in Critical Thinking.

haha OK,maybe you are a little funny ;)

the New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials — most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party

Looks like they have succeeded... the angry left.

1995 Barack Obama sought the New Party's endorsement for his 1996 state senate run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers.

No way..... who would have thought??? hahaha

ILMB, you make a poor case regarding Farrakhan association, as does the author. There is actually no proof, as far as I can tell, that Obama and Farrakhan EVER met. If I were to use the same degrees of association, I could just easily tie Bush to Hitler, seeing as his grandfather did business with the Nazis. Again, we can play this game all day long. But at the end of the day, it doesn't amount to much.

Christian Areas,
Round and round we go again. Ah...just give it time, the truth always comes out. You'll see sooner or later. He's not the guy you think he is. You can keep making excuses for him but it won't change anything.

Actually iluvmyblog has shown a great deal of patience, his postings were detailed and a valiant effort at getting around your BDS.

That's incredibly funny. And you guys think I'm the one who's brainwashed.

That's S.O.C.I.A.L.I.S.T. I don't care if it has Rush Limbaugh's signature on it ChristainAreas it's Socialist inspired Income Redistribution. Know what you are embracing.

According to AIM? Yeah, a truly reputable source. Seriously, you're as brainwashed as you claim I am. Personally, I try and stay away from these hyper-partisan sites. Obviously, you and your ilk swear by them.

Actually iluvmyblog has shown a great deal of patience,

Thank you AMR 1960 ;)
AMR 1960,

Know what you are embracing.

Sadly, he chooses not to know.
Christian Areas,

Personally, I try and stay away from these hyper-partisan sites

No, actually you try to shield yourself from anything that's different from you.

Sadly, he chooses not to know.

What? I choose not to believe what you believe, thus I choose "not to know." I mean, this is the ultimate bull@!$%#.

No, actually you try to shield yourself from anything that's different from you.

That's a load of crap. I've read Liberal Fascism, tune into Fox and read a lot of op-eds and such by Conservatives -- some of which I can agree with -- and so forth. I'm also not registered with any party, never have been, no, not in my entire life. So don't give me this BS about how I "shield" myself from other ways of thinking. It insults my intelligence, and makes you look like an idiot.

Christian Areas,

Please, stay in your ignorance, it's obviously  bliss for you, because when you come out of it you are very hostile. Hence why I said, you shield yourself from anything that's different from you.

The article states facts. It's a fact that Obama has associated with theses radicals.  They are communist, Marxist,and racist friends of his, deal with it.

It insults my intelligence,

haha! Uh... your ignorance is what  insults your "intelligence".

Your words would be better spoken in front of the mirror. Very sad for you. Have a nice day.

Your words would be better spoken in front of the mirror. Very sad for you.

Nah, but nice try though.

Have a nice day.

Awe, thanks you too ;)

Fair warning Ms. ILMB I'm stealing that line it's a keeper!

lol By all means AMR 1960 go for it! ;)

I think the word you're looking for is informed. Not coming to a certain conclusion is not called ignorance, it's called a difference in opinion. And I hate to burst your bubbles, but an opinion is not the same thing as a fact. As I've said, I've looked at practically all these allegations, and they lead to nothing incredibly damning. I even challenged a few of the contentions, and none of you had much to say in defense. The best you guys could come up with is, "he's a friend of a friend." Even the stuff on Ayres is weak. The best I've heard is that Ayres pushed for reforms in schools that Obama supported as well, things that were incredibly innocuous. I know you guys feel confident, voting each others comments up and all, and piling on, but at the end of the day, you're all left grasping.

There is one thing missing from the [Obama supporter] comments that I've seen so far. Any refutation of the facts in the piece[?]

Been there, done that. How about some original criticisms? What's really funny is that it's so easy to come up with original criticisms when it comes to McCain, Palin, Bush and the entire GOP. LOL!

It's always about changing the subject, isn't it? The article is not about McCain, Palin or Bush. But thanks for the confirmation.

Again, where are your original criticisms of Obama? If he's as fallible as your rightwing colleague has indicated, you'd have something, no? Heck, I could help you out if you're having trouble.

Again, where are your original criticisms of Obama?

That is an asinine question if ever I heard one. The criticisms and concerns that have been raised haven't been answered to anyone's satisfaction. Originality is irrelevant.

What's asinine is your level of critical thinking. It doesn't take much time to debunk the nonsense. I, and others, have done it ad nauseam -- never to the satisfaction of the rightwing ideologues. You and your "friends" take such writings as the holy truth. To state otherwise is blasphemous, and a sign of "ignorance." Spare me.

Just look at Barack Obama's Global Tax Proposal S. 2433, the "Global Poverty Act"

Oh, how dastardly! Money to fight poverty, hunger, disease, etc. And your source is just impeccable. No bias there. *cough* But just for kicks, let me offer another source:

A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

Note the list of 30 co-sponsors. Dear GOD, what a bunch of socialist, that Richard Lugar especially. *rollseyes*

I love it how you and your pals try and dismiss Obama supporters with idiotic names like "Obamania" and the like. I guess it goes hand and hand with anti-intellectualism.

So we're supposed to just ignore the deification by the media and others, the comments by politicians that he has been sent by God, the halo effect photos, etc. and never ever refer to Him in any thing but reverential terms? Please.
I don't take any thing as Holy truth. There are a lot of questions being asked by some smart and reputable people (Stanley Kurtz and David Feddoso come to mind) and no ones getting any thing but obfuscation, and smear the messenger responses from folks like yourself.

So we're supposed to just ignore the deification by the media and others, the comments by politicians that he has been sent by God, the halo effect photos, etc. and never ever refer to Him in any thing but reverential terms? Please.

First, your characterization is ridiculous. Second, I do not view him in that light, so don't throw those bull@!$%# terms my way.

no ones getting any thing but obfuscation, and smear the messenger responses from folks like yourself.

That's simply not the case. I chose a few examples from the author's... whatever, and took issue based on substance. So please, step off the cross.