[quote="huskiebob"][quote="NIU70"]Here's the latest on the "Islamic Seminary:"

BARACK ATTACK UNFOUNDED

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/22451...23.article

January 23, 2007

BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist

Barack Obama's week-old presidential campaign has been hit with a smear. Hillary Clinton's White House bid, launched Saturday, has been attacked with an unfounded accusation.

Contrary to what was reported in Insight magazine and then repeated on Fox News and in other news outlets, including a column that ran in the Sun-Times by free-lancer Mark Steyn, Obama was not educated in a radical Islamic school when he was an elementary student in Jakarta.

And there is no evidence whatsoever that Clinton's campaign had anything to do with spreading the damaging rumor that Obama hid a Muslim background.

The source for both slurs started in a report posted on the Web site of Insight, a conservative magazine published by the Washington Times. The article with no named sourcing alleged that researchers connected to Clinton dug up information about Obama as part of a "background check."

Over the past few days the story bounced around the blogosphere and then spilled over to other conservative outlets.

Let's set the record straight.


Wear Western clothes

Obama's U.S. mother, divorced from his Kenyan father, married an Indonesian she met at the University of Hawaii and moved to Jakarta in 1967, when Obama was 6.
He wrote in his memoir, Dreams from My Father, that he was educated in Muslim and Catholic schools there.

Obama reflected about his life in Indonesia in his second book, The Audacity of Hope.

CNN sent senior international correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to visit Obama's elementary school, which he attended between 1969 and 1971. It is clearly not the sort of school that breeds violent fanatics.

The pictures show boys and girls at the state-run Basuki School wearing blue and white uniforms taught by men and women wearing Western dress.


'Shakes people's faith'

It is located in a wealthy Jakarta neighborhood, located down the road from the home of the U.S. ambassador. Vause described the school as "probably better off than most."
"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, the deputy headmaster, told CNN. "In our daily lives we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment."

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the episode was not damaging to Obama's campaign but was "a black eye on journalism" because it "shakes people's faith in the truth."

I asked Gibbs if he thought Clinton's camp had anything to do with this and he said, "I don't."

Last year, at the end of a trip to Africa, Obama said he planned to visit Indonesia in 2007.

But I know ALL of us would be scared of a John Kerry presidency ;-) [/quote]

I'd defintely rather have Kerry in office than the ******* we have now.

BARACK ATTACK UNFOUNDED



BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist

Barack Obama's week-old presidential campaign has been hit with a smear. Hillary Clinton's White House bid, launched Saturday, has been attacked with an unfounded accusation.

Contrary to what was reported in Insight magazine and then repeated on Fox News and in other news outlets, including a column that ran in the Sun-Times by free-lancer Mark Steyn, Obama was not educated in a radical Islamic school when he was an elementary student in Jakarta.

What many don't know is that the Washington Times and Insight Magazine are publications owned by the "Rev" Sum Yung Moon and his cult of brainwashed followers.

Dog Fan Wrote:

Lord Stanley Wrote:

NIUJDK Wrote:What is most painful in reading this thread is the number of people who are not being honest in their evaluation of the enemy - radical Islam - and their tactics. Once you and your kids are dead or outnumbered, it is too late to say "Oh I guess that I was wrong". Look at Afghanistan and Lebanon for examples. For heaven sakes, these people are going to make you muslim, or you (an infidel) are going to die. That is their starting point and you all refuse to be intellectually honest and address this issue outside the political arena. I can only pray that you don't make it to the ballot box. You do not recognize the threat that is upon us right now.

Outstanding. Needs to be repeated and repeated and repeated. We are truly at a crossroads of civilizations - which side are you all on?

Unfortunately, the ignorant bleeding hearts among us who preach love and lillies for all human beings fail to understand that some of those "human beings" that they love will cut their heads off if given any kind of opportunity to do so. The bleeding hearts, forgetful of 9/11 and other atrocities, are quick to blame the USA for the world's problems and truly believe that if the evil USA were defeated or eliminated the world's problems would stop and everyone would start planting flowers and singing Kum Ba Ya. Just spend an hour or two with the bleeding heart pacifists who parade and blast the USA every Friday evening on the corner of First & Lincoln Hwy. in DeKalb.

The bleeding hearts do not have the intellectual capacity to realize that there are many sick, demented, and evil peoples, cultures, and religions in this world who are all jealous of the stature and living standards of the USA. These entities live each day for the sole purpose of seeing America and its allies destroyed. There is no talking to them, negotiating with them, or preaching peace and love to them that will change their philosophies or hatred of us. The only way to "negotiate" with them is to destroy them. The limited brain capacity of the bleeding hearts fails to understand that their Muslim brothers and sisters need to constantly fight and kill in order to achieve their own sort of self "worth". When the Muslims do not have the USA and its allies to fight, they fight and kill each other. Look at Iraq, Iran, and the Palestinian territories in Israel for numerous examples throughout history. Their religion preaches violence to "defend" their "honor". Either you are Muslim and pro-Muslim, or an infidel who must be destroyed. Ask Salman Rushdie what it's like to question Islam.

Unfortunately, the bleeding hearts among us have hearts where their brains are supposed to be. Put the pacifists in charge and we can only pray that our hearts will be the only things that bleed.

I totally agree with you DF. I think that everyone on this board wants world peace and goodwill eternal among men as an outcome. In the interim, we need to recognize when evil is upon or amongst us and eliminate it. We can't ignore it. I pray every day for our troops in harms way - especially NIUGUY. They are the bravest of the brave and deserving of our total support, not political surrender.

Quote:I totally agree with you DF. I think that everyone on this board wants world peace and goodwill eternal among men as an outcome. In the interim, we need to recognize when evil is upon or amongst us and eliminate it. We can't ignore it. I pray every day for our troops in harms way - especially NIUGUY. They are the bravest of the brave and deserving of our total support, not political surrender.

[RANT]
Well thank you. Unfortunetly I'm a liberal (bleeding heart is just a politcal BS term..like calling all republicans hawks) who isn't against the use of force...kind of like President Clinton in many ways. I know many (including myself) in the Army who think they arnt worth saving and we arnt accomplishing anything. Destroying evil? What is this some kind of dungeons and dragons game? We arnt destroying evil in Iraq. We are growing it.

Sadly I must admit that I've grown a little vengeful while listening to people and seeing Iraq first hand. Most of me wants out of Iraq because we arnt going to accomplish our goals. The other part of me (small part, but there) just wants to see em **** each other up. I'll admit that its wrong and totally not my style. Hell I dont even believe in the death penalty. But part of me is like "well if they want to fight each other lets give them what they want." Lets let them develop a some sort of government structure so we can have something to bomb later. ugh.

[/RANT]

Anyways....I think we can agree on one thing.


mm pizza...

niu88 Wrote:Are ya kidding about this? He was 10!!!!!!!!!!!! Having a 10 yr old myself, I have no concern that things he thinks are important now will be dramaticlly different over time. I can't even get him to be a Bears fan. This is just the thing that short-sighted conservative racist bigits will jump on to make an issue. There will be no interest in what he belives in now, or what his plans are to fix things in the country. I dont know if he is the best candidate for President, but this information certainly won't be used in my decision making process and its sad that other people would.

HEY - this was the Clinton camp that is pushing this issue - I guess they are conservative racist bigots to huh (see I can even spell bigots correctly)

niuguy Wrote:[RANT]
Well thank you. Unfortunetly I'm a liberal (bleeding heart is just a politcal BS term..like calling all republicans hawks) who isn't against the use of force...kind of like President Clinton in many ways. I know many (including myself) in the Army who think they arnt worth saving and we arnt accomplishing anything. Destroying evil? What is this some kind of dungeons and dragons game? We arnt destroying evil in Iraq. We are growing it.

Sadly I must admit that I've grown a little vengeful while listening to people and seeing Iraq first hand. Most of me wants out of Iraq because we arnt going to accomplish our goals. The other part of me (small part, but there) just wants to see em **** each other up. I'll admit that its wrong and totally not my style. Hell I dont even believe in the death penalty. But part of me is like "well if they want to fight each other lets give them what they want." Lets let them develop a some sort of government structure so we can have something to bomb later. ugh.

[/RANT]

What do you see GOOD on the ground in Iraq?

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

garyindiana Wrote:Why should he even run? It would waste his time and money not to mention he wouldn't even been on all the state ballots. I wish third parties would work in our system, but it just won't happen. The people in charge won't allow it to happen because they have all the power. Our country may be great, but it is far from a perfect democracy. (especially since it is a republic)

Ironically, it's that sentiment that keeps the status quo going. If enough people being to vote for a third party, one or both of the main parties will chance their stance. The Libertarians have likely cost the GOP several Senate and House seats in the last 6 years, and almost the Presidency twice.

Ross Perot DID cost Bush his re-election term - Clinton had only 43% of the vote, Bush had 38% and Perot had 19%. Most analysts had Perot voters 75% more likely to vote for Bush over Clinton.

Lord Stanley Wrote:

niuguy Wrote:[RANT]
Well thank you. Unfortunetly I'm a liberal (bleeding heart is just a politcal BS term..like calling all republicans hawks) who isn't against the use of force...kind of like President Clinton in many ways. I know many (including myself) in the Army who think they arnt worth saving and we arnt accomplishing anything. Destroying evil? What is this some kind of dungeons and dragons game? We arnt destroying evil in Iraq. We are growing it.

Sadly I must admit that I've grown a little vengeful while listening to people and seeing Iraq first hand. Most of me wants out of Iraq because we arnt going to accomplish our goals. The other part of me (small part, but there) just wants to see em **** each other up. I'll admit that its wrong and totally not my style. Hell I dont even believe in the death penalty. But part of me is like "well if they want to fight each other lets give them what they want." Lets let them develop a some sort of government structure so we can have something to bomb later. ugh.

[/RANT]

What do you see GOOD on the ground in Iraq?

Obviously I had just my limited scope/sector...which really was better than most of ramadi. ...but really, i didn't see anything i'd consider "positive". I mean, my AO (area of operations) wasnt as bad as say, Ramadi proper or many parts of Bagdad...it was fairly peaceful and not completly blown to hell...but if thats the definition of positive...yikes!

Hmm ok, here is one positive I can think of. I saw on occasasion some decent police presence. In certain areas these "police" had decent control and the population genuinely feared them. They were still lazy and probobly pretty messed up as far as police go..but I had moments where I was impressed. I remember one time we were showing each other our weapons. They were impressed by the M24 (Remington Model 700 with scope) and it was fun to show em my night vision...but we were careful :) Never got to shoot the AK :(

Last I heard after we left the violance went up in our AO and some surrounding areas.

niuguy Wrote:

Quote:I totally agree with you DF. I think that everyone on this board wants world peace and goodwill eternal among men as an outcome. In the interim, we need to recognize when evil is upon or amongst us and eliminate it. We can't ignore it. I pray every day for our troops in harms way - especially NIUGUY. They are the bravest of the brave and deserving of our total support, not political surrender.

[RANT]
Well thank you. Unfortunetly I'm a liberal (bleeding heart is just a politcal BS term..like calling all republicans hawks) who isn't against the use of force...kind of like President Clinton in many ways. I know many (including myself) in the Army who think they arnt worth saving and we arnt accomplishing anything. Destroying evil? What is this some kind of dungeons and dragons game? We arnt destroying evil in Iraq. We are growing it.

Sadly I must admit that I've grown a little vengeful while listening to people and seeing Iraq first hand. Most of me wants out of Iraq because we arnt going to accomplish our goals. The other part of me (small part, but there) just wants to see em **** each other up. I'll admit that its wrong and totally not my style. Hell I dont even believe in the death penalty. But part of me is like "well if they want to fight each other lets give them what they want." Lets let them develop a some sort of government structure so we can have something to bomb later. ugh.

[/RANT]

Anyways....I think we can agree on one thing.


mm pizza...

finally, someone with actual experience to backup anything. much applause! A deep dish is due for you!

niuguy Wrote:

Quote:I totally agree with you DF. I think that everyone on this board wants world peace and goodwill eternal among men as an outcome. In the interim, we need to recognize when evil is upon or amongst us and eliminate it. We can't ignore it. I pray every day for our troops in harms way - especially NIUGUY. They are the bravest of the brave and deserving of our total support, not political surrender.

[RANT]
Well thank you. Unfortunetly I'm a liberal (bleeding heart is just a politcal BS term..like calling all republicans hawks) who isn't against the use of force...kind of like President Clinton in many ways. I know many (including myself) in the Army who think they arnt worth saving and we arnt accomplishing anything. Destroying evil? What is this some kind of dungeons and dragons game? We arnt destroying evil in Iraq. We are growing it.

Sadly I must admit that I've grown a little vengeful while listening to people and seeing Iraq first hand. Most of me wants out of Iraq because we arnt going to accomplish our goals. The other part of me (small part, but there) just wants to see em **** each other up. I'll admit that its wrong and totally not my style. Hell I dont even believe in the death penalty. But part of me is like "well if they want to fight each other lets give them what they want." Lets let them develop a some sort of government structure so we can have something to bomb later. ugh.

[/RANT]

Anyways....I think we can agree on one thing.


mm pizza...

Thanks for the info, too bad it isn't more positive. I think the vast majority of people would vote for the "surge" in troops if they had a good reason to think it would work and shorten the war in the long run. Those of us in the US don't get a good idea of what's really happening on the ground in Iraq from the news, but I'm personally pessimistic that adding more soldiers is going to accomplish anything.

I don't think it's fair to compare the situation in Iraq to what happened with Japan in WWII, as someone mentioned above. The Japanese weren't religious zealots that wanted to live in the stone age (and they were generally pretty industrious), so the same type of response probably wouldn't work.

No dem candidate can win anything without a lock on the black vote. Wouldn't it be hillarious if the black vote goes to Obama instead of Hillary. Can you imagine how pissed Hillary would be about that? I wonder what spin is going on behind the scenes right now? Can you imagine being put in the position of having to kiss JJ & Al's rear end? I wouldn't do that for any amount of money in the world.

I hope niether one of these guys is the democratic candidate for 2008 because both are too easy to defeat. If the dems give Hillary or Obama, that means the republicans will give us McCain, Romny or Guilani all of which are not conservatives. I'd rather have a real conservtive this time like Huckaby or Duncan Hunter or even Tancredo. If it's business as usual with the republicans I will not vote in the next presidential election.

[quote="NIUJDK"]I think that everyone is trying to hang Kedz for stating the obvious.

If you are going up against the Clintonistas and you have baggage, they are going to portray you as a child molester who is the worst type of scum. We should pin this thread to see who is going to be right. The Clintonistas are going to crucify this guy and you can bet the fact that he was 10 years old is going to be omitted from their message.

As for the last election, get real. Why do you think all the Democrats ran campaigns as if they were Republicans (pro life, church going, spending restraint, etc.)? The problem was millions ( I was one) of conservatives who refused to vote for these spending whores in Congress. There was no way the mandate for liberalism that all of you liberals are thinking occurred. The next election will confirm what I am saying. Again, we need to pin this thread to show that I am right - AGAIN.

Most Democrats ran "mainstream" campaigns the last election cycle and most also ran on an anti war platform which is definitely as anti republican as you can be. US Forces will be in Iraq until the end of king george III's term. The electorate voted against that policy in the last election cycle and will do so with a vengeance again, provided the Dems don't make complete fools of themselves (which can never be totally discounted). 21 of the 33 US Senate seats up for election are currently held by Republicans with Colorado Senator Wayne Allard® not seeking reelection. If the current US troop levels remain the same in Iraq the Dems will widen their majority in the House and may pick up the 9 seats needed to have a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate. Several Republican Senators are running as far away from the neocon agenda as they can (Smith, Hagel, Coleman, Voinivich, Spector, Collins, and Sununu)

Dems have their faults too but the country will be far better off with Medicare finally being able to negotiate price on prescription drugs which will save billions. an increase in the minimum wage, the end of tax breaks to the oil monopoly and the shifting of those incentives to renewable resources, plus a curtailing of the myriad tax breaks for the billionaires. Clinton's time in the White House was the best this country has seen in decades and with the right policies that can return.

onlinepole Wrote:[quote="NIUJDK"]I think that everyone is trying to hang Kedz for stating the obvious.

If you are going up against the Clintonistas and you have baggage, they are going to portray you as a child molester who is the worst type of scum. We should pin this thread to see who is going to be right. The Clintonistas are going to crucify this guy and you can bet the fact that he was 10 years old is going to be omitted from their message.

As for the last election, get real. Why do you think all the Democrats ran campaigns as if they were Republicans (pro life, church going, spending restraint, etc.)? The problem was millions ( I was one) of conservatives who refused to vote for these spending whores in Congress. There was no way the mandate for liberalism that all of you liberals are thinking occurred. The next election will confirm what I am saying. Again, we need to pin this thread to show that I am right - AGAIN.

Most Democrats ran "mainstream" campaigns the last election cycle and most also ran on an anti war platform which is definitely as anti republican as you can be. US Forces will be in Iraq until the end of king george III's term. The electorate voted against that policy in the last election cycle and will do so with a vengeance again, provided the Dems don't make complete fools of themselves (which can never be totally discounted). 21 of the 33 US Senate seats up for election are currently held by Republicans with Colorado Senator Wayne Allard® not seeking reelection. If the current US troop levels remain the same in Iraq the Dems will widen their majority in the House and may pick up the 9 seats needed to have a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate. Several Republican Senators are running as far away from the neocon agenda as they can (Smith, Hagel, Coleman, Voinivich, Spector, Collins, and Sununu)

Dems have their faults too but the country will be far better off with Medicare finally being able to negotiate price on prescription drugs which will save billions. an increase in the minimum wage, the end of tax breaks to the oil monopoly and the shifting of those incentives to renewable resources, plus a curtailing of the myriad tax breaks for the billionaires. Clinton's time in the White House was the best this country has seen in decades and with the right policies that can return.

Yes indeed, weren't we all pround to have a lip-biting sexual predator along the lines of Hannibal in the White House who conducted the nations business while getting serviced by an intern under the desk. Then he couldn't tell the truth (about anything) to save his life. If Clinton did anything right while he was in office, it was an accident. I don't trust the guy (or his wife) anymore than I would trust Hitler or Stalin.

It is no secret that the coming months, Obama is going to be beaten by. He is the most popular politician at the moment! Since the Islamic school, when he was 10, does not mean anything, you are just looking for a reason not to support it.

Hey Kedz, how's Obamas Presidency looking now? After roasting Trump and having the troops take out UBL, looks like another 4 years.

Especially when you see who the Republicon/cant competition is

ImPalin: complete moron
Bachman: idiot
Santorum: doesn't have a snowballs chance in hades
Donald Chump Trump: attention whore who bailed when the going got tough
Newt: 3 divorces and had the nerve to disagree for a day with Paul Ryan till he got slapped down by the Teabaggers. So no chance for him.

Romney: can you say Romneycare

Now if Bachmann & Palin could run on the same ticket, the laughs would increase exponentially!