PDA

View Full Version : Obama Civilian Security?


Rev7
11-03-2008, 10:28 PM
Obama Civilian Security Force? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s)

Entire Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw) (~16:45)

Why do we need a 'second' military when we already have a very strong military?

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" -Benjamin Franklin

Q
11-03-2008, 10:34 PM
Get ready for the Thought Police.

And you all thought that the Patriot Act was bad. Not that it wasn't: it most certainly was. I forsee more Wacos and Ruby Ridges in our near future.

Yay. :indif:

mimartin
11-03-2008, 10:39 PM
Never heard of Posse Comitatus Act?

Q
11-03-2008, 10:45 PM
Of course.

Ever heard of Kent State?

Rev7
11-03-2008, 10:49 PM
Never heard of Posse Comitatus Act?
I have now.

Posse Comitatus Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)

However, I that Obama is talking about an entirely different thing than what that act covers.

Spending millions of dollars on a security force?

mimartin
11-03-2008, 10:56 PM
Spending millions of dollars on a security force?
It makes more sense protecting ourselves from terrorist than not protecting ourselves. :rolleyes: How secure are our ports again?


Kent State is a good example why we should be using our security force trained in security rather than those trained militarily to protect us domestically.

Q
11-03-2008, 11:00 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was the NSA's job.

Rev7
11-03-2008, 11:07 PM
It makes more sense protecting ourselves from terrorist than not protecting ourselves.Yes...

Kent State is a good example why we should be using our security force trained in security rather than those trained militarily to protect us domestically.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
That is saying a lot.

America's Military Budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States)

That is a lot of money.

Web Rider
11-03-2008, 11:10 PM
I'm not seeing a problem here. If you reply on others to protect yourself, when the time comes for you to protect yourself, you'll be screwed.

mimartin
11-03-2008, 11:11 PM
Funny then just why was Homeland Security created. We already had the National Softball Association National Security Agency. I get it; it is all right for ďso-calledĒ conservatives to create huge useless bureaucracies, but the liberals canít.

Web Rider
11-03-2008, 11:14 PM
Funny then just why was Homeland Security created.

Homeland Security, IMO, always seemed to spend more time watching we citizens than it did watching threats to us.

El Sitherino
11-04-2008, 12:16 AM
National Guard?

Q
11-04-2008, 12:55 AM
Funny then just why was Homeland Security created. We already had the National Softball Association National Security Agency. I get it; it is all right for “so-called” conservatives to create huge useless bureaucracies, but the liberals can’t.
I wasn't in favor of Homeland Security, either. We need less bureaucracy, not more. The last thing we need is yet another overpowered federal agency sucking up our tax dollars and hassling the citizenry in order to justify its existence. We have more than enough af that crap now.

Arcesious
11-04-2008, 01:11 AM
This country is quite divided, demoralized, and unprepared for serious conflicts (IE, a war with another superpower.), it seems.

Litofsky
11-04-2008, 08:28 AM
I can't help but wonder if this is just another one of those promises to (help) get elected...

Not that this is a 'big' issue in the populace's eyes (if they've even heard about it). An economy-destroying war, an incompetent President, and a recession take precedence over this, if I remember human beings correctly.

EnderWiggin
11-04-2008, 08:45 AM
This country is quite divided, demoralized, and unprepared for serious conflicts (IE, a war with another superpower.), it seems.

I think every country is unprepared for a war with another superpower.

M.A.D. ftw.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
11-04-2008, 09:07 AM
It makes more sense protecting ourselves from terrorist than not protecting ourselves. :rolleyes: How secure are our ports again?


There is a difference between securing our ports and having a Secret Police like is what is found in a dictatorship.


Kent State is a good example why we should be using our security force trained in security rather than those trained militarily to protect us domestically.

Uh there is something called state and local police, this sounds to me more like a secret police to make people disappear than anything else.

There are also outright accusations that the mainstream media attempted to cover this up.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/17/are-the-media-airbrushing-obamas-speeches/

EnderWiggin
11-04-2008, 09:12 AM
having a Secret Police like is what is found in a dictatorship.

a secret police to make people disappear than anything else.


ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh nazis!

McCain 2008: I'm not hitler.

_EW_

mimartin
11-04-2008, 09:17 AM
There is a difference between securing our ports and having a Secret Police like is what is found in a dictatorship.Obama said nothing about Secret Police. Way to spin. I also find this funny considering Obama talking about an open government compared to the last 8 years.


Uh there is something called state and local police, this sounds to me more like a secret police to make people disappear than anything else. And the local police and state police do a wonderful job writting tickets or catching the drug user, but I still remember 9/11/2001.

There are also outright accusations that the mainstream media attempted to cover this up. Different thread, same old tune... "You spin me right round, baby right round like a record, baby."

GarfieldJL
11-04-2008, 09:26 AM
Obama said nothing about Secret Police. Way to spin.


Okay if you were advocating a secret police force and trying to get elected would you admit that's what it really was.


And the local police and state police do a wonderful job writting tickets or catching the drug user, but I still remember 9/11/2001.


Oh so now you're concerned about security. I guess it's cause a Democrat will be in office. Seriously, there is the NSA and FBI, what Obama's program sounds like quite honestly is a secret police.

The other causes of concern are:

WND points out two newspapers that printed the supposedly complete transcript of the speech, the Wall Street Journal and the Denver Post, as examples. The New York Times didnít post a transcript, and neither did the Washington Post nor the Los Angeles Times. Most oddly, as Unruh points out, the Obama website doesnít have that speech available, either.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/17/are-the-media-airbrushing-obamas-speeches/

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_9765136
And the Denver Post has deleted the transcript, so you ask me why I don't trust the mainstream media?

All of these signs point to the idea that this is to create a secret police.

EnderWiggin
11-04-2008, 09:28 AM
All of these signs point to the idea that this is to create a secret police.

Plz stop making things up.

kthxbai.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
11-04-2008, 09:32 AM
Plz stop making things up.

kthxbai.

_EW_

Are you next going to try to say I magically created the video where Obama made those comments as well? :¬:

EnderWiggin
11-04-2008, 09:34 AM
Are you trying to say I magically created the video where Obama made those comments as well? :¨:

No just that you're completely making up the part about Obama creating another Schutzstaffel.

_EW_

mimartin
11-04-2008, 09:35 AM
Okay if you were advocating a secret police force and trying to get elected would you admit that's what it really was. I'm not advocating a secret police force and neither is Obama. I'm hoping Obama stop the Secret Police force Bush put into place, at least that is what I call spying on your own citizens without judicial oversight.


All of these signs point to the idea that this is to create a secret police. You misread the signpost.

GarfieldJL
11-04-2008, 09:39 AM
No just that you're completely making up the part about Obama creating another Schutzstaffel.

_EW_

I'm not making anything up, it all fits if you connect the dots.

You have the blacklisting that news channel, you have the incident in Missouri I talked about a while ago.
http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192825

We have Acorn as I've brought up before whose specialty is voter fraud:
http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192666

Then we also have the treatment of Joe the Plumber.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html?sid=101

All these contribute to the analysis that Obama is planning on creating a secret police. All the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle.

I'm not advocating a secret police force and neither is Obama. I'm hoping Obama stop the Secret Police force Bush put into place, at least that is what I call spying on your own citizens without judicial oversight.


Last I checked Bush's wiretaps were of phone calls where at least one party was in another country. That's a big difference from illegally going through someone's tax records without probable cause.

jrrtoken
11-04-2008, 09:51 AM
That is your own ignorant and scaremongering opinion. It is based on little credible evidence and is an outright smear. If you'd like to provide hardcore evidence of a Democrat gestapo, then I'd like to see it. Because if I remember correctly, we've already had an authoritarian regime post-9/11, and that was with Republicans in control of every branch of the government.

Jae Onasi
11-04-2008, 10:09 AM
Keep it civil, folks. You can disagree without name-calling.

GarfieldJL
11-04-2008, 10:22 AM
That is your own ignorant and scaremongering opinion. It is based on little credible evidence and is an outright smear. If you'd like to provide hardcore evidence of a Democrat gestapo, then I'd like to see it. Because if I remember correctly, we've already had an authoritarian regime post-9/11, and that was with Republicans in control of every branch of the government.

No we didn't, President Bush didn't have people's tax information gone through because they asked him a tough question.

This isn't a smear, in fact I'm getting a little annoyed that whenever someone finds something that isn't falling all over itself praising Obama, it's called a smear job.

Seriously, if anyone has been unfairly smeared this year it's been Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Governor Palin, and Joe the Plumber.

mimartin
11-04-2008, 10:28 AM
Last I checked Bush's wiretaps were of phone calls where at least one party was in another country. That's a big difference from illegally going through someone's tax records without probable cause. I have no problem with wiretaps, so you can stop right there. I have a problem with no judicial oversight and that does not matter if you are calling ten miles away or half way around the world. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 gave Bush the means to wiretap, but it also required judicial oversight in the form of a special court. However Bush gave the secret order to NSA saying they did not need the FISA courtís approval.

GarfieldJL
11-04-2008, 10:33 AM
I have no problem with wiretaps, so you can stop right there. I have a problem with no judicial oversight and that does not matter if you are calling ten miles away or half way around the world. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 gave Bush the means to wiretap, but it also required judicial oversight in the form of a special court. However Bush gave the secret order to NSA saying they did not need the FISA court’s approval.

So you're saying they should have hung up immediately when a terrorist overseas suddenly calls a cell phone that happens to be in the United States.

They weren't tracking phone convos that were entirely in the United States, they were tapping the phone calls from phones they knew the terrorists were using outside the United States and ended up listening into a conversation with someone whom was in the United States, that the terrorists called. That's a big difference from getting into someone's personal records via government computers without probable cause.
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/27/copy/joe28.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Litofsky
11-04-2008, 10:41 AM
So you're saying they should have hung up immediately when a terrorist overseas suddenly calls a cell phone that happens to be in the United States.

They weren't tracking phone convos that were entirely in the United States, they were tapping the phone calls from phones they knew the terrorists were using outside the United States and ended up listening into a conversation with someone whom was in the United States, that the terrorists called. That's a big difference from getting into someone's personal records via government computers without probable cause.

Garfield, it seems as though you've just missed mimartin's entire point. He said that he was fine with wiretapping. Why? Because it might help save American lives, and the fact that it is/was overseen by the Judicial Branch. However, what Bush did was to give the NSA the ability to wiretap anyone without judicial oversight. That's what his problem is.

GarfieldJL
11-04-2008, 10:48 AM
Garfield, it seems as though you've just missed mimartin's entire point. He said that he was fine with wiretapping. Why? Because it might help save American lives, and the fact that it is/was overseen by the Judicial Branch. However, what Bush did was to give the NSA the ability to wiretap anyone without judicial oversight. That's what his problem is.

The Judicial Oversight applied to domestic wiretapping, not wiretapping foreign nationals in another country.

The gray area was when it was a foreign/domestic phone call, in the incident of the terrorists calling someone in the US, it is my opinion that the only permission that would have to be asked for the wiretapping is if they wiretapped the phone in the United States, otherwise in my opinion it was fair game.

Wiretapping terrorists is totally different from raiding someone's personal records without probable cause. Which is partially what indicates that Obama is trying to create a Secret Police Force.

mimartin
11-04-2008, 10:52 AM
So you're saying they should have hung up immediately when a terrorist overseas suddenly calls a cell phone that happens to be in the United States.
Not without judicial oversight. Why should the citizens be expected to follow laws when our own government does not follow the rules the government itself created. Also something in the Oath of Office that says the presents swears to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Seems to me illegal wiretaps goes against that pledge.

Are you saying it is all right to listen to two citizens’ personal conversation just because one happens to be vacationing in England? Or is everyone that goes on vacation outside the good ol’ US of A considered a terrorist threat?

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-04-2008, 11:00 AM
Oh so now you're concerned about security. I guess it's cause a Democrat will be in office. Seriously, there is the NSA and FBI, what Obama's program sounds like quite honestly is a secret police.too busy wiretapping us. and how is the nsa different from a secret police force?

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/17/are-the-media-airbrushing-obamas-speeches/thank god random hotair.com blogger is on the case

No just that you're completely making up the part about Obama creating another Schutzstaffel.waffle ss

GarfieldJL
11-04-2008, 11:01 AM
Not without judicial oversight. Why should the citizens be expected to follow laws when our own government does not follow the rules the government itself created. Also something in the Oath of Office that says the presents swears to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Seems to me illegal wiretaps goes against that pledge.

They weren't citizens though, we were wiretapping the terrorist (some of these intercepts were from cell phones in the middle of Afghanistan). They happened to call someone in the United States, were we supposed to simply shut down the link at that point? Would they need a warrent to tap the phone in the United States, yes they would need a warrent to tap the phone in the United States. It's counter intuitive to hang up when they are plotting to bomb targets in the United States. As long as the wiretap was on the phone that was in places like Afghanistan, and they happened to call someone in the US. They could listen in without a warrant to that conversation, but they would then need to obtain a warrant to tap the cell phone that is in the United States.


Are you saying it is all right to listen to two citizens’ personal conversation just because one happens to be vacationing in England? Or is everyone that goes on vacation outside the good ol’ US of A consider a terrorist threat?

I wasn't aware that Osama bin Laden was a US citizen. Furthermore, the phone calls in question were from locations that it would be highly unlikely to be a vacation site (Afghanistan).

As I said there is a big difference between the wiretapping and what happened in Ohio and Missouri which indicates Obama's intention is to form a Secret Police.

too busy wiretapping us. and how is the nsa different from a secret police force?

I wasn't aware that you lived in Afghanistan.

mimartin
11-04-2008, 11:05 AM
They weren't citizens though, we were wiretapping the terrorist (some of these intercepts were from cell phones in the middle of Afghanistan). Then why not get Judicial Approval?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2181/2310693918_b0b8dca693.jpg

GarfieldJL
11-04-2008, 11:16 AM
Then why not get Judicial Approval?


Whose to say they didn't try to obtain judicial approval after the conversation was concluded (permission to listen in on phone conversations that occur with the phone that is in the United States). Seriously, do you honestly think the NSA knew beforehand that the cell phones in Afghanistan they were tapping would end up being used to call a specific individual in the United States so they could obtain the Judicial Approval? You can't get blanket approval, you need to have a specific name or specific group with some probable cause to obtain a warrant. They couldn't get that information beforehand.



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2181/2310693918_b0b8dca693.jpg

That picture is a real laugh but isn't remotely accurate. One of the callers was on foreign soil (in fact that was the phone they were tracking (the one on foreign soil)), furthermore the phones they were tracking tended to be in Afghanistan in the middle of a war zone or other countries that are known sponsors of Terrorism (such a Syria or Iran).

This isn't even remotely equivalent to the secret police that Obama apparently wants set up.

mimartin
11-04-2008, 11:28 AM
You can't get blanket approval, you need to have a specific name or specific group with some probable cause to obtain a warrant. Just in case someone is actually reading this looking for facts. Blanket Wiretaps (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32554739_ITM) It seems when they wanted one they got one and it was done legally.

This isn't even remotely equivalent to the secret police that Obama apparently wants set up. Very true, since Obama does not want to set up the secret police.

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-04-2008, 11:33 AM
I wasn't aware that you lived in Afghanistan.razor sharp wit itt.

oh wait all you did is dodge the question and regurgitate a bush administration talking point about how the nsa isn't illegally wiretapping people. thanks.

Yar-El
11-04-2008, 12:33 PM
Obama Civilian Security Force? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s)

Entire Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw) (~16:45)

Why do we need a 'second' military when we already have a very strong military?

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" -Benjamin Franklin You get what you vote for. Police state here we come.

GarfieldJL
11-04-2008, 02:37 PM
oh wait all you did is dodge the question and regurgitate a bush administration talking point about how the nsa isn't illegally wiretapping people. thanks.

If this were true, wouldn't a lot of the Mainstream Media and President Bush's other enemies be in jail by now?


Seriously, this isn't even remotely similar to how the Obama campaign went after an American Citizen.

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-04-2008, 02:47 PM
If this were true, wouldn't a lot of the Mainstream Media and President Bush's other enemies be in jail by now?your logic is flawless good sir


Seriously, this isn't even remotely similar to how the Obama campaign went after an American Citizen.wat

EnderWiggin
11-04-2008, 03:15 PM
If this were true, wouldn't a lot of the Mainstream Media and President Bush's other enemies be in jail by now?
No.
This doesn't even make sense. What would they be arrested for? And who's to say that the media isn't being wiretapped? And the NSA is wiretapping.

_EW_

ET Warrior
11-04-2008, 03:20 PM
Is my tin foil hat just not on tight enough? I don't understand how it flows logically that if Obama wants a security force to protect the internals of the country from terrorism that directly equates to Secret Gestapo Thought Police force of Socialism.

EnderWiggin
11-04-2008, 03:23 PM
Secret Gestapo Thought Police force of Socialism.

Don't forget we're abbreviating it as KGB.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
11-04-2008, 03:30 PM
This doesn't even make sense. What would they be arrested for? And who's to say that the media isn't being wiretapped? And the NSA is wiretapping.


Well the objective of abusing power like that would usually be towards eliminating political rivals. Like what Obama Campaign and Co. tried to do in Missouri and Ohio.

Speech by Missouri Governor Transcript (http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem)

It's the reason why I know this blog (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/27/missouri-governor-goes-nuclear-on-obama-for-using-prosecutors-on-campaign-truth-squad/) is telling the truth.

And also shows why this civilian security whatever that Obama is proposing is nothing more than a Secret Police like what we see in a dictatorship.

mimartin
11-04-2008, 03:32 PM
Is my tin foil hat just not on tight enough?
You need to tighten the tin foil hat around your neck to have it make sense. :nut:

GarfieldJL
11-04-2008, 03:45 PM
Is my tin foil hat just not on tight enough? I don't understand how it flows logically that if Obama wants a security force to protect the internals of the country from terrorism that directly equates to Secret Gestapo Thought Police force of Socialism.

Here are some reasons and I imagine Yar-El can add to them.

Obama is a socialist
Obama's Campaign was involved in threatening people in Missouri for Criticizing him
Obama supporters illegally used government computers to get into Joe the Plumber's tax records and other personal information
The Black Panthers are now involved in voter intimidation in Pennsylvania
Hugo Chavez wants Obama to win
Obama's radicial associations
The Democrats trying to push through the "fairness doctrine"
Obama campaign blacklisting a news station for asking Senator Biden tough questions
Obama Campaign Contributing over $800,000 to an organization that specializes in voter fraud
Obama campaign accepting money from credit cards that can't be tracked (which is probably from illegal donors), as well as foreign contributions (which are definately illegal (specifically the Middle East))

EnderWiggin
11-04-2008, 05:46 PM
Obama is a socialist
Obama's Campaign was involved in threatening people in Missouri for Criticizing him
Obama supporters illegally used government computers to get into Joe the Plumber's tax records and other personal information
The Black Panthers are now involved in voter intimidation in Pennsylvania
Hugo Chavez wants Obama to win
Obama's radicial associations
The Democrats trying to push through the "fairness doctrine"
Obama campaign blacklisting a news station for asking Senator Biden tough questions
Obama Campaign Contributing over $800,000 to an organization that specializes in voter fraud
Obama campaign accepting money from credit cards that can't be tracked (which is probably from illegal donors), as well as foreign contributions (which are definately illegal (specifically the Middle East))

1. Obama is NOT a socialist, even if some of his policies have socialist tendencies.
2. I don't know enough on the issue, but I'm inclined to disagree with anything you think.
3. If these things were illegal, why wouldn't he be called on it?
4. Obama's not a Black Panther, Obama's not controlling the Black Panthers, that was in one spot in PA, go away.
5. Al-Qaeda wants McCain to win. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/22/al-qaeda-supporters-endor_n_136779.html
6. William Ayers isn't even a point that anyone cares about anymore.
7. This has nothing to do with Obama, especially because he "does not support reimposing the fairness doctrine on broadcasters" quote.
8. Those questions weren't tough, they were just dumb. "Isn't Obama a socialist?" Anyway, its their prerogative to choose where to take their interviews.
9. ACORN is not even a relevant point. ACORN does a lot of positive things for communities, and even though they were involved in a few incidents, those members are not indicative of ACORN's overall objectives.
10. Allegedly.


AND STILL: none of these reasons indicate that Obama would want a personal SS.

Hope this helps.

_EW_

jrrtoken
11-04-2008, 05:58 PM
Obama is a socialistSorry, but the last thread about this proved you wrong. Next.

Obama's Campaign was involved in threatening people in Missouri for Criticizing himNeed proof.

Obama supporters illegally used government computers to get into Joe the Plumber's tax records and other personal information:lol: Alright, this just sounds completely overblown and frankly ridiculous. I'd like some proof.

The Black Panthers are now involved in voter intimidation in PennsylvaniaOh noes, the Black Panthers are back! Proof?

Hugo Chavez wants Obama to winAnd? Almost every other world leader probably wants Obama to win. It doesn't mean jack.

Obama's radicial associationsSmear tactics, plain and simple.

The Democrats trying to push through the "fairness doctrine"Proof?

Obama campaign blacklisting a news station for asking Senator Biden tough questionsWe've also deemed that the interviewer was warmongering and ultra-conservative.

Obama Campaign Contributing over $800,000 to an organization that specializes in voter fraudAgain, there is no connection that proves that the Obama campaign gave money to ACORN to specifically manipulate votes, therefore, your argument has no merit.

Obama campaign accepting money from credit cards that can't be tracked (which is probably from illegal donors), as well as foreign contributions (which are definately illegal (specifically the Middle East))Alright, unless if you can prove any of your claims with more moderate, no BS proof, then I can't see your point.

GarfieldJL
11-04-2008, 06:02 PM
1. Obama is NOT a socialist, even if some of his policies have socialist tendencies.


His friends are socialists, he has several socialist policies, including wanting to "spread the wealth around" there's an old saying, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck chances are it is a duck.


2. I don't know enough on the issue, but I'm inclined to disagree with anything you think.

Feeling is mutual.


3. If these things were illegal, why wouldn't he be called on it?


Well there have been some people indited so it was obviously illegal.


4. Obama's not a Black Panther, Obama's not controlling the Black Panthers, that was in one spot in PA, go away.


Okay and what about the situation in Missouri, Ohio, and elsewhere earlier in the year.


5. Al-Qaeda wants McCain to win. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/22/al-qaeda-supporters-endor_n_136779.html

Why should I or anyone else take a known hate site at face value?


6. William Ayers isn't even a point that anyone cares about anymore.

Actually I care, as do thousands of others, and we're people too.


7. This has nothing to do with Obama, especially because he "does not support reimposing the fairness doctrine on broadcasters" quote.


So he says, but he's lied about everything else so why the heck should I believe him.


8. Those questions weren't tough, they were just dumb. "Isn't Obama a socialist?" Anyway, its their prerogative to choose where to take their interviews.

Actually the questions were more fair than a lot of the garbage McCain has been asked, and I got news for you and other Democrats, Republicans get questions far worse than that on a routine basis.


9. ACORN is not even a relevant point. ACORN does a lot of positive things for communities, and even though they were involved in a few incidents, those members are not indicative of ACORN's overall objectives.

You honestly expect me to believe that when they openly endorsed Senator Obama violating Federal Law because they take Federal Money and are tax-exempt.


10. Allegedly.


Wrong, it's not allegedly unless you're saying there is a man named Adolf Hitler living in the middle of a river quite literally donating money to Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413_pf.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/politics/washingtonpost/main4556689.shtml
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2008/10/31/obamas-untraceable-online-donations-absent-ny-times


AND STILL: none of these reasons indicate that Obama would want a personal SS.

I think how they treated Joe the Plumber is a good indicator as to Obama making his own personal SS.

El Sitherino
11-04-2008, 06:08 PM
Garfield, you need to learn from the errors of the McCarthyism strategy. I suggest beginning with Good Night and Good Luck just because it's an awesome movie. After that there are several History Channel Documentaries that detail the blacklists and the national conspiracy against the Red Menace.

Jae Onasi
11-04-2008, 06:09 PM
All right, we're done here, at least until I decide if it's worth it to edit a bunch of posts and re-open it.