Newspapers overwhelmingly endorsing Obama

Stalin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
1,129
Just as unbelievable as a young war hero supporting an organisation that sold illegally weapons to Iran to fund an illegal terrorist operation against a sovereign state running for US president 20 years later.

"...In the 1980s, McCain served on the advisory board to the U.S. chapter of an international group linked to ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America.

The U.S. Council for World Freedom aided rebels trying to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua. That landed the group in the middle of the Iran-Contra affair and in legal trouble with the Internal Revenue Service, which revoked the charitable organization's tax exemption.

The council created by retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub was the U.S. chapter of the World Anti-Communist League, an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. After setting up the U.S. council, Singlaub served as the international league's chairman.

McCain's tie to Singlaub's council is undergoing renewed scrutiny after his campaign criticized Obama for his link to Ayers, a former radical who engaged in violent acts 40 years ago. Over the weekend, Democratic operative Paul Begala said on ABC's "This Week" that this "guilt by association" tactic could backfire on the McCain campaign by renewing discussion of McCain's service on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom, "an ultraconservative right-wing group."

In two interviews with The Associated Press in August and September, Singlaub said McCain became associated with the organization in the early 1980s as McCain launched his political career. McCain was elected to the House in 1982.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mccain
 
Werbung:

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
Just as unbelievable as a young war hero supporting an organisation that sold illegally weapons to Iran to fund an illegal terrorist operation against a sovereign state running for US president 20 years later.

Equally believable, and much more recent, would be Obama's support for a Left-Wing Radical Kenyan, Raila Odinga - Pictured here with Obama:
obama_odinga0808.jpg

In August and September 2006, Senator Barack Obama traveled to South Africa, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Chad and Kenya as a congressional delegation of one...While in Kenya, Obama consistently appeared at the side of fellow Luo Raila Odinga, who was running for President.

Raila Odinga subsequently lost the controversial presidential election.

Odinga’s supporters went on a rampage—burning Kikuyu homes and businesses, raping Kikuyu women, and murdering everyone in their path—including at least 50 Christian Kikuyu woman & children who had sought refuge in a church. They burned them alive.

“We have evidence that ODM [Odinga’s party] politicians and local leaders actively fomented some post-election violence,” Georgette Gagnon, acting Africa director for the New York based Human Rights Watch (HRW), said on Thursday.”

Their relationship is unclear. The BBC initially reported that Obama and Odinga were first cousins. The Obama campaign has since denied a familial relationship. Raila Odinga’s father Oginga Odinga was leader of the “Kenya People’s Union” and perceived as a “committed socialist”. Odinga Sr. was also the political ally of fellow Luo; Barack Obama Sr. -- African Press

You won't find this information anywhere on the Obama WIKI page.... Of course, we can't have the truth becoming mainstream, that might hurt his chances in the election and tarnish his career.
 

Pandora

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
11,790
Location
The people's republic of Eugene
Equally believable, and much more recent, would be Obama's support for a Left-Wing Radical Kenyan, Raila Odinga - Pictured here with Obama:
obama_odinga0808.jpg



You won't find this information anywhere on the Obama WIKI page.... Of course, we can't have the truth becoming mainstream, that might hurt his chances in the election and tarnish his career.

They dont want to talk about that. I sure wish they would though
 

Stalin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
1,129
I'm shocked !

Just imagine if John McCain took part in an illegal invasion of another country without just cause, which as the US prosecutor stated at the Nuremburg trials, is one of the worst crimes possible..

"...Meanwhile, in discussions over proposed U.S. action against Iraq, McCain was a strong supporter of the Bush administration's position.[147] He stated that Iraq was "a clear and present danger to the United States of America", and voted accordingly for the Iraq War Resolution in October 2002.[147] He predicted that U.S. forces would be treated as liberators by a large number of the Iraqi people...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccain
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Most city newspapers are firmly entrenched in the liberal media establishment - conservative newspaper editors are extremely rare. The title of this thread might just as well have been "Liberals support Obama". :rolleyes:

Even the ones I cited above that have never endorsed a Democratic candidate before?
 

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
Just as unbelievable as a young war hero supporting an organisation that sold illegally weapons to Iran to fund an illegal terrorist operation against a sovereign state running for US president 20 years later.

"...In the 1980s, McCain served on the advisory board to the U.S. chapter of an international group linked to ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America.

The U.S. Council for World Freedom aided rebels trying to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua. That landed the group in the middle of the Iran-Contra affair and in legal trouble with the Internal Revenue Service, which revoked the charitable organization's tax exemption.

The council created by retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub was the U.S. chapter of the World Anti-Communist League, an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. After setting up the U.S. council, Singlaub served as the international league's chairman.

McCain's tie to Singlaub's council is undergoing renewed scrutiny after his campaign criticized Obama for his link to Ayers, a former radical who engaged in violent acts 40 years ago. Over the weekend, Democratic operative Paul Begala said on ABC's "This Week" that this "guilt by association" tactic could backfire on the McCain campaign by renewing discussion of McCain's service on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom, "an ultraconservative right-wing group."

In two interviews with The Associated Press in August and September, Singlaub said McCain became associated with the organization in the early 1980s as McCain launched his political career. McCain was elected to the House in 1982.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mccain

You are trying to compare the foreign policy approach of the US in the context of the Cold War to the foreign policy approach of the United States after the collapse of the USSR.

You can compare them all you want, but it is not a relevant comparison. The foreign policy goals and approaches of the United States have drastically changed over this 20 year period, thankfully John McCain has changed with it.
 

Stalin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
1,129
No they haven't but I can how you have been beguiled into thinking that they have.

The fiasco of the recent events in Georgia shows that aboslutely nothing has changed.

Russia is more encircled by US bases and weapons than any other time.

The use of war as a foreign policy option has increased since 1990.

McCain hasn't changed. He is still a cold war fossil.

The packaging has changed, but the content is the same.

A War Pig.

Plain and simple.

Comrade Palin
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
Just as unbelievable as a young war hero supporting an organisation that sold illegally weapons to Iran to fund an illegal terrorist operation against a sovereign state running for US president 20 years later.

To a lib, leftist, or commie, there's nothing more important than a "sovereign state". Cuba is a sovereign state. North Korea is a sovereign state. Nazi germany was sovereign state. Saddam's iraq was a sovereign state. Supporters of freedom however identify two kinds of state: dictatorships which gained and retain power by force, and democracies. The dictatorships are legitimate only in the eyes of the statist thugs you support.

The sandinistas were a marxist outfit that established a dictatorship in nicaragua - anyone who helped overturn them and establish a democracy deserves the eternal gratitude of free people everywhere.
 

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
No they haven't but I can how you have been beguiled into thinking that they have.

The fiasco of the recent events in Georgia shows that aboslutely nothing has changed.

Russia is more encircled by US bases and weapons than any other time.

The use of war as a foreign policy option has increased since 1990.

McCain hasn't changed. He is still a cold war fossil.

The packaging has changed, but the content is the same.

A War Pig.

Plain and simple.

Comrade Palin

I hardly think the invasion of Ossestia means what you are implying. Sure Russia wants to reassert itself, but they are not even close to being what they were.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
To a lib, leftist, or commie, there's nothing more important than a "sovereign state".

To a true, blue American, however, a sovereign state is only important if the government of that state favors whatever foreign policy our government happens to have at the time.

Otherwise, there is no reason to respect the internal affairs of any state.

Right?
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
To a true, blue American, however, a sovereign state is only important if the government of that state favors whatever foreign policy our government happens to have at the time.

Otherwise, there is no reason to respect the internal affairs of any state.

Right?

Would you respect the "internal affairs" of nazi germany, if it never invaded another country? Do you respect the soviet union's gulag, show trials, the Great Terror, and the deliberately engineered Ukrainian Famine?

Do your respect the Armenian Genocide - 5 million people killed as part of the internal affairs of Turkey in 1915?

Do you "respect the internal affairs" of the PRC in the twentieth century, responsible for approximately 50 million deaths?

Do you respect the "internal affairs" of the Khmer Rouge when it ruled cambodia, and killed a quarter of the population?

OBVIOUSLY, the phrase "morally bankrupt" doesn't do justice to your absurd position.

No non-democratic governing regime has the right to exist, and should be eliminated when possible and convenient by democratic states.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Would you respect the "internal affairs" of nazi germany, if it never invaded another country? Do you respect the soviet union's gulag, show trials, the Great Terror, and the deliberately engineered Ukrainian Famine?

Since Nazi Germany did invade other countries, that's a moot point. As for the Soviet Union, there wasn't much anyone could have done about their human rights abuses other than to condemn them, was there? Would an invasion of the Soviets been a good idea?

Do your respect the Armenian Genocide - 5 million people killed as part of the internal affairs of Turkey in 1915?

Respect it? Of course not. Does that mean we should have invaded Turkey?
or that we should have recognized that genocide for what it was several decades ago?

Do you "respect the internal affairs" of the PRC in the twentieth century, responsible for approximately 50 million deaths?

I certainly don't advocate a war with China. I suppose the rest of the world must respect them, as they do a lot of business with that country.

Do you respect the "internal affairs" of the Khmer Rouge when it ruled cambodia, and killed a quarter of the population?

Not really. We should never have recognized the Khymer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia.


No non-democratic governing regime has the right to exist, and should be eliminated when possible and convenient by democratic states.


Does that mean you advocate deposing all non democratic governments by force whenever it looks as if it might be "convenient" to do so?:eek:
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
To a true, blue American, however, a sovereign state is only important if the government of that state favors whatever foreign policy our government happens to have at the time.

Otherwise, there is no reason to respect the internal affairs of any state.

Right?

Determining the implications of this accusation, why then do left-wing people support us marching all over Africa?

I find it amazing that the left will first claim that we have no reason to be in Iraq, no validation that Iraq poses a direct, or indirect, threat to the US... yet they want us to go tromping all through Africa, where they have less than zero ability to harm us.

It's almost like the left is a big bully. Bullies never pick on people that can hurt them, or pose a threat. Instead they find the weakest person possible, and push them around. We can't do anything to Iraq which was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, but we can go pick on some tiny 3rd world muslim nation in Africa who couldn't lift a finger against us.
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
Since Nazi Germany did invade other countries, that's a moot point. As for the Soviet Union, there wasn't much anyone could have done about their human rights abuses other than to condemn them, was there? Would an invasion of the Soviets been a good idea?

Here's a thought. Surround the soviet empire with bases, forcing them to do the same. Pursue a system of defensive missile bases capable of shooting down incoming ICBMs. Pursue development of a string of offensive and defensive satellites. Contest soviet expansion and soviet backed communist dictatorships world wide. Finely, wage a war of words in the court of public opinion, by openly calling the soviets, the evil immoral empire that they are.

This idea will force the Soviets into a economic and moral corner, which will cause their collapse. Oh wait, all this was already done. Thank God for Ronald Reagan. :)

Respect it? Of course not. Does that mean we should have invaded Turkey?
or that we should have recognized that genocide for what it was several decades ago?

Obviously, we can't contend for world domination. I have no interest in attacking every country that is an evil socialist dictatorship. That said, when we have just cause, we should act. We had more than enough reason to go into Iraq, and it was the right thing to do.

I certainly don't advocate a war with China. I suppose the rest of the world must respect them, as they do a lot of business with that country.

No... there is a massive difference between the people of China, and the government of China. We respect their people. Chinese people are wonderful awesome people. Their government still sucks. Most of the Chinese people here, are here because they had a second child, and their government requires them to murder additional children.

Does that mean you advocate deposing all non democratic governments by force whenever it looks as if it might be "convenient" to do so?:eek:

Absolutely. If a country does something that requires our attention, and demonstrates the need to deal with it militarily, then we shouldn't just contain it, or put in a no fly zone, or have some sort of conditional surrender with a tyrannical dictator who gasses his own people.

We should wipe out that entire government, and rebuild the country with a domestically elected government, such as what Iraq has now. Imagine if we had followed that in 91. This wouldn't even be an issue today.
 
Werbung:

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Determining the implications of this accusation, why then do left-wing people support us marching all over Africa?

I find it amazing that the left will first claim that we have no reason to be in Iraq, no validation that Iraq poses a direct, or indirect, threat to the US... yet they want us to go tromping all through Africa, where they have less than zero ability to harm us.

It's almost like the left is a big bully. Bullies never pick on people that can hurt them, or pose a threat. Instead they find the weakest person possible, and push them around. We can't do anything to Iraq which was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, but we can go pick on some tiny 3rd world muslim nation in Africa who couldn't lift a finger against us.

I'm not sure who this "left" is of whom you speak. Why don't you ask them why they want us "marching all over Africa"?
 
Top