This guy sure knows how to pick his friends, from terrorists, America haters, and now pedophiles. If he wins the White House, he will be a lonely man as there is no way his friends will get through screening. Would Obama let his perv mentor babysit his daughters? Given the fact he lets admitted terrorist Bill Ayers babysit hsi kids, I am betting he let's perv Frank Davis watch them too.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/obama_sex_perv_scandal/celebrity/65575

PS - Enquirer, LA Times, and ABC are all working the Obama affair story. Should come out in a week or two.

Shouldn't they stop putting out drivel like this and focus on finding Bat Boy or Bigfoot?

So Obama shouldn't be President because he might have sexually abused? Is that what you are trying to say? Because if that is the issue, then I want to see John McCain's mental evaluations from the VA.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Obama shouldn't be President because he might
> have sexually abused? Is that what you are trying
> to say? Because if that is the issue, then I want
> to see John McCain's mental evaluations from the
> VA.

Apparently you have some reading comp problems. Where in my statement or in the article does it say Obama was abused? It says that Obama referred to a sexual deviant as his mentor and father figure. So, my point is what kind of man is Obama if his role model is a major sexual deviant? I don't think McCain would refer to any of his abusers as mentors. He shouldn't be President, because he has REPEATEDLY exercised poor judgement when it comes to those he surrounds himself. The President cannot have a cabinet full of anti-American, sexually deviant terrorists.

I'm just waiting for when they'll link Obama with ET. Somethings gotta stick.. It's just gotta.

Hahaha. What the hell kind of story is this??

Does anyone else think that the National Enquirer is false-flagging at this point? I mean, this story is so dumb, it must be a deliberate attempt to make the Republican critics appear like idiots.

national enquirer is a bunch of bullshit they make storys up all the time and they are harldy ever correct.

Newsman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Apparently you have some reading comp problems.
> Where in my statement or in the article does it
> say Obama was abused? It says that Obama referred
> to a sexual deviant as his mentor and father
> figure. So, my point is what kind of man is Obama
> if his role model is a major sexual deviant? I
> don't think McCain would refer to any of his
> abusers as mentors. He shouldn't be President,
> because he has REPEATEDLY exercised poor judgement
> when it comes to those he surrounds himself. The
> President cannot have a cabinet full of
> anti-American, sexually deviant terrorists.


I'll accept this story on Obama when Republicans accept it that Sarah Palin fucked her husband's business partner, as the Enquirer has reported.

The McCain supporters sure are getting desperate these days.

So, it I read this right. This is someone Obama knew when he was 10 to 17 years old?! Wow, that is going way back. A complete non-story.

When a story like this comes out against either candidate, why not just come right out and ask them? They might say "Of course this is not true", but it doesn't hurt to ask.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Newsman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Apparently you have some reading comp problems.
>
> > Where in my statement or in the article does it
> > say Obama was abused? It says that Obama
> referred
> > to a sexual deviant as his mentor and father
> > figure. So, my point is what kind of man is
> Obama
> > if his role model is a major sexual deviant? I
> > don't think McCain would refer to any of his
> > abusers as mentors. He shouldn't be President,
> > because he has REPEATEDLY exercised poor
> judgement
> > when it comes to those he surrounds himself.
> The
> > President cannot have a cabinet full of
> > anti-American, sexually deviant terrorists.
>
>
> I'll accept this story on Obama when Republicans
> accept it that Sarah Palin fucked her husband's
> business partner, as the Enquirer has reported.

+1......

Someone please post the current prediction market results to show GOP supporters that pigs, even with lipstick, will not EVER fly.

Ok, that is funny as hell.

A few weeks ago the same folks lauded the NE as the voice of truth regarding Palin and her life, now we get this. ROFL. Wow.

Well, no one can say NE isn't fair and balanced... although I have to say the innuendo that this story makes sure is taking the cake. LOL

Quote

In his shocking tell-all, Davis admits to seducing a thirteen year-old girl, voyeurism, exhibitionism, bisexuality, rape and sadomasochism.

Barack, called "Barry" as a child, was a mere ten year old when he first met the family friend who lead a secret double life.

Obama's grandfather introduced Barry and Davis because he believed it would help his alienated grandson identify with being of mixed heritage because Barack's mother, Ann, was a white American while his father, Barack Sr.black Kenyan.

Obama's parents separated and then divorced when Barack was only 2. Ann remarried and took Barack to live with her and new husband Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia - but Barack was later sent to live with his white grandparents in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Barack describes how Frank Davis had a lasting effect on him and became a father figure over the seven years they knew one another on the tropical island.

In Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote: "He would read us poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar.

"As the night wore on, the two of them would solicit my help in composing dirty limericks."

Obama described being counseled by Frank often and recalled drinking whiskey with him.

Since Frank Davis has been identified as the author of Sex Rebel: Black, Obama has been extremely secretive about the true nature of his experience with the self-admitted deviant.

LOL

The same people that pick up the National Enquirer are the same people that vote Republican. They are usually from red states and take it literally.

Oh please.. too funny. A couple of weeks ago folks here were all gaga over the Palin stuff, now it is a rag.

LOL.

From intrade.com........

Barack Obama to win 2008 US Presidential Election - Last Price: 77.8

John McCain to win 2008 US Presidential Election - Last Price: 22.4

Strong Sell on McCain. Eat it. Chew it. Swallow it.

AH yes, spam-o-intrade.

Your answer to everything when you have no answer.

It seems intrade is the answer to everything. I guess we must all make our decisions based on the latest lines. You have something riding on this I guess other than your intellect.

Hope you don't get indigestion.

LOL This Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From intrade.com........
>
> Barack Obama to win 2008 US Presidential Election
> - Last Price: 77.8
>
> John McCain to win 2008 US Presidential Election
> - Last Price: 22.4
>
> Strong Sell on McCain. Eat it. Chew it. Swallow
> it.


Have you figured out how these work yet? Still think there is one that predicts the electoral college outcome?

Another early Obama supporter/detractor... Never know what this guy is up to:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm?page=0

Quote

He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy - saying America must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

Obviously he includes the Clinton administration...

Quote

Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

Will Obama's election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

"No, that chapter won't be closed," he says. "However, Obama's victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades."

Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. "I see no evidence of that," he says. "Obama's thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture."

But is Obama - who's not a descendant of slaves - truly a typical American black?

Jackson emphatically answers yes: "You don't need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society," he says. "Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain."

Right....

Quote

On the economic front, he hopes for "major changes in our trading policy."

"We cannot continue with the open-door policy," he says. "We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad."

Would that mean an abrogation of the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico?

Jackson dismisses the question as "premature": "We could do a great deal without such dramatic action."

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "an illegal and unjust act." But he's now sure that the United States "will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time."

What of Obama's promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting "realities on the ground."

"We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there," he says. "We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith."

So Jackson is basically saying that things Obama supports now will not come to pass. If not on foreign policy, then what else can we expect? How does he say that Obama represents change, when in the same breath he points out that he will most likely not re-negotiate NAFTA or CAFTA (one of Obama's key early policies), and also he will most likely have to leave troops in Iraq for a while. Oh right, when he gets in office he will be met with reality, and not campaign stump speeches. But then what are you left with?

Quote

"Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss," Jackson says. "Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."

"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson says. "Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith."

Granted, Jesse says he doesn't speak for the campaign.... but um. Right, this is all America's fault since we supported Israel, I forgot. We invited all this radical Muslim hate on ourselves.

pretty much! I think it was said in one of the republikan debates also!

Registered Voter Wrote:
>
> Granted, Jesse says he doesn't speak for the
> campaign.... but um. Right, this is all America's
> fault since we supported Israel, I forgot. We
> invited all this radical Muslim hate on ourselves.


Yeah, you're right. They don't hate us for anything we've done, they just hate us for our freedoms. It certainly isn't for supporting corrupt monarchies and dictators on the arabian peninsula, or for pitting Iran and Iraq against each other in a decades long war, or for assassinating Mossadegh, or for providing a logistical airbridge to arm and supply Israel during the Yom Kippur War, or for waging war twice in the middle east against arab regimes.

I get it. It's our freedoms. We're such a great and exceptional nation supported by God, it certainly can't have anything to do with our actions. It has to be that those people are evildoers, and not like us, that's why they hate us.

the first thing any demagogue does is to deamonize their opponent..strip them of their humanity. I am sure RV will come back with some very witty pack of lies designed to do that very thing....and all by cutting and pasting from republikan web sites.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> > Granted, Jesse says he doesn't speak for the
> > campaign.... but um. Right, this is all
> America's
> > fault since we supported Israel, I forgot. We
> > invited all this radical Muslim hate on
> ourselves.
>
>
> Yeah, you're right. They don't hate us for
> anything we've done, they just hate us for our
> freedoms. It certainly isn't for supporting
> corrupt monarchies and dictators on the arabian
> peninsula, or for pitting Iran and Iraq against
> each other in a decades long war, or for
> assassinating Mossadegh, or for providing a
> logistical airbridge to arm and supply Israel
> during the Yom Kippur War, or for waging war twice
> in the middle east against arab regimes.
>
> I get it. It's our freedoms. We're such a great
> and exceptional nation supported by God, it
> certainly can't have anything to do with our
> actions. It has to be that those people are
> evildoers, and not like us, that's why they hate
> us.


Bob - this argument has two sides. It seems everyone has conveniently forgotten the Cold War. Great, so the Soviet Union dissolved, does that mean the underlying conflicts, including the Russian/Soviet desire to control the oil in the Middle East, along with other geo-political excursions into the Americas has stopped? No. That is one of the reasons we support Israel, also why we supported Iran, then Iraq later when Iran went Shia. If you don't understand the underlying reasons for why these issues are out there, then what are you doing arguing against them?

Unfortunately the US cannot go back and hide its head in the sand. If we did, then we would be victim to whatever policies the other folks out there with an agenda have. This has been proven time and time in the past - when the US acts like it can just sit back and watch, eventually we get affected (usually in a bad way) by events abroad. Sure, lately it has not been the best policy - but you think that all this is happening in a vacuum and that the Russians and Chinese have nothing to gain by stoking the Islamic countries to hate us even more? It is definitely in the Chinese and Russian self-interest (in their view) to hose us over in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world as they can. If you believe those 2 countries should have a bigger say in running the world, then I guess that explains why you believe the US is a problem. What would you suggest - that we go in and eliminate the dictators and thuggish governments? No, then what? Let them run over other countries? Sometimes you have to provide support to folks you don't necessarily agree with 100%. Israel happens to be someplace we have a vested interest in - especially with the large Jewish population in the US.

There is a larger game afoot out there, and the US is not the only ones "pulling the strings" as you would like to believe. Or do you just support Communism? Because when you make comments like the ones above, it seems you forget the folks pushing the agenda from the other side.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the first thing any demagogue does is to deamonize
> their opponent..

kind of like putting "k" in Republican? Or more like calling Gov. Palin a bitch? Or telling a woman who disagrees with you to iron your shirts?

So when is the Republican concession speech anyway? It seems like the GOP tone has gotten more and more negative and somber. Almost like sucking on a persimmon: bitter.

White Flag Waving Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So when is the Republican concession speech
> anyway? It seems like the GOP tone has gotten
> more and more negative and somber. Almost like
> sucking on a persimmon: bitter.

Speaking of concessions, get me my hot dog and a beer. Get yourself educated and you might find yourself in a real job that doesn't involve slinging grub or sucking whatever it is you suck on for cash.

As a side note, I see Obama has publically stated that he fully supports Israel....

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/826665.html

Quote

"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," he said.

"Israelis want more than anything to live in peace with their neighbors, but Israel also has real - and very dangerous - enemies," Obama said.

...

In his speech, Obama intends to remove any doubts that the Democratic Party's donors and constituents, many of whom are Jewish, may have about his support for Israel.

So - that stunning appraisal Bob gave earlier about how we are so wrong to support Israel, and here is Obama, making it pretty clear he is going to continue doing just that...

Is this just Obama talking out one side of his mouth while doing something else (politics as usual)? Is this reality? If so it kind of shoots Bob's hopes for a new future out the window since it appears Obama will supoprt Israel also.

I guess Bob is wrong. That seems to be the only conclusion I can draw from this.

Angry Fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> White Flag Waving Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So when is the Republican concession speech
> > anyway? It seems like the GOP tone has gotten
> > more and more negative and somber. Almost like
> > sucking on a persimmon: bitter.
>
> Speaking of concessions, get me my hot dog and a
> beer. Get yourself educated and you might find
> yourself in a real job that doesn't involve
> slinging grub or sucking whatever it is you suck
> on for cash.

You're in luck. That's what's we're serving at the Republican Pity Party on Nov. 5th. You should come out with Kleenex in tow.

Hug-A-Republican Day - Nov. 5th Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're in luck. That's what's we're serving at
> the Republican Pity Party on Nov. 5th. You should
> come out with Kleenex in tow.

You do know that even when Obigears is elected, you still won't have a decent job.

On the contrary. I'm a trial lawyer specializing on white collar criminal defense. If anything, I'm certain to see an increased workflow.

Happy Fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the contrary. I'm a trial lawyer specializing
> on white collar criminal defense. If anything,
> I'm certain to see an increased workflow.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Knowing how much you LOVE telling people you are a GTown educated lawyer, I thought I'd throw you a sofball followed by this curveball.

I didn't go to Georgetown or anywhere on the east coast for that matter. So since we're talking baseball, you're coming out of left field on that one. Would it be too much to assume that more than one lawyer frequents this forum or is your mind too clouded from the fact that your GOP vote will be meaningless?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Bob - this argument has two sides. It seems
> everyone has conveniently forgotten the Cold War.
> Great, so the Soviet Union dissolved, does that
> mean the underlying conflicts, including the
> Russian/Soviet desire to control the oil in the
> Middle East, along with other geo-political
> excursions into the Americas has stopped? No. That
> is one of the reasons we support Israel, also why
> we supported Iran, then Iraq later when Iran went
> Shia. If you don't understand the underlying
> reasons for why these issues are out there, then
> what are you doing arguing against them?


Russia is not making "geo-political excursions into the Americas". The Soviet Union did, but Russia is currently focused on building, internally, for the most part, upon their newly acquired status as an oil power. Also, because of this new status, they really aren't concerned with "controlling the oil in the middle east". Yes, they trade with Iran and help Iran with a lot of science and technology, but this is mostly a purely profit motive, especially since they are one of only a few countries that will ignore the UN embargos.


>
> Unfortunately the US cannot go back and hide its
> head in the sand. If we did, then we would be
> victim to whatever policies the other folks out
> there with an agenda have. This has been proven
> time and time in the past - when the US acts like
> it can just sit back and watch, eventually we get
> affected (usually in a bad way) by events abroad.
> Sure, lately it has not been the best policy - but
> you think that all this is happening in a vacuum
> and that the Russians and Chinese have nothing to
> gain by stoking the Islamic countries to hate us
> even more? It is definitely in the Chinese and
> Russian self-interest (in their view) to hose us
> over in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world
> as they can. If you believe those 2 countries
> should have a bigger say in running the world,
> then I guess that explains why you believe the US
> is a problem. What would you suggest - that we go
> in and eliminate the dictators and thuggish
> governments? No, then what? Let them run over
> other countries? Sometimes you have to provide
> support to folks you don't necessarily agree with
> 100%. Israel happens to be someplace we have a
> vested interest in - especially with the large
> Jewish population in the US.


I never said we should just sit back and watch. In fact, I was trying to make it clear to you that we were not attacked because we just sat back and watched, but because we were actively engaged over there, and interfering in local and regional politics and economics. We've never been attacked, or even denounced by many countries because we have nothing to do with them, we don't help, or hurt them, we mean nothing to them.

The idea that we should support isreal because we have a large Jewish population is really bad logic. We also have a large Muslim population. We also have a lot of Irish. Italians. Germans. Should we have supported Germany in the 1930's due to our large German population? Well, there were a lot of powerful and influential people who actually did believe we should have, but luckily back then we put American interests first, meaning the nation, not factional ideological concepts of national security shielding a special group's profit or power initiatives overseas. For some reason, American leaders back then understood that we had moved beyond the colonial era (especially since we had only dabbled in colonialism just a little by the time most contemporary thinkers of the time realized we had moved past it), but it seems to be making a come back.


>
> There is a larger game afoot out there, and the US
> is not the only ones "pulling the strings" as you
> would like to believe. Or do you just support
> Communism? Because when you make comments like the
> ones above, it seems you forget the folks pushing
> the agenda from the other side.


At least you recognize that strings are being pulled. Most people who try to condense other people's arguments down to "you hate america" or "blame america first" don't recognize this central fact. Yes, every party involved in a dispute or conflict is pulling strings, playing dirty tricks, and lying to their people to justify it. However, I don't care if Iraq was not playing fair, as I'm not an Iraqi citizen. I am, however an American Citizen, and my responsibility is to MY country. We have the money, the power, and the intelligence to play without playing dirty, without subterfuge and deception (especially when directed against ourselves.) -- Once we start manipulating the truth in order to achieve a short-term goal, those mistruths become part of our collective reality, and eventually things get so confused that the next crisis is seen through the warped lense of all those previous lies. At some point, we're operating from such a convoluted and completely unrealistic world view that even the best and brightest with the best and most noble intentions are incapable of dealing with the real crisis, and we end up like the Soviet Union after their 1980's foray into Afghanistan, bankrupt and in political, economic and ideological chaos, and ultimately, collapse.

All excellent points Bob...the fact is the US now sees itsself as the last superpower and has taken actions worldwide to impose our will through force and subtifuge.

Oh what a load. The US has been a manipulator since before JFK came into office. Today you have the Russians sending ships down to Venezuela, and holding military exercises with them. They are sending bomber groups over northern European countries like they did in the past, and they are using petro-dollars to rebuild themselves.

We have been "imposing" our power ever since the American Revolution.

I like dick

Donald Trump's grandfather and his family wealth stems from a whore house and a family of pimps.

The Trump family made their bones as pimps off of whores.

sorry I didn't make it clear enough. I REALLY LIKE DICK!!!

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Donald Trump's grandfather and his family wealth
> stems from a whore house and a family of pimps.
>
> The Trump family made their bones as pimps off of
> whores.


Lies, but even if true they weren't buggering little boys like Obama's lineage.