View Full Version : McCain camp demands L.A. Times release video
John McCain's campaign is demanding that the Los Angeles Times release a video of a party for a prominent Palestinian activist that Barack Obama attended in 2003.
The Times described the going-away party for former University of Chicago professor, and Obama friend, Rashid Khalidi, in a story in April (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story). The story reported that Palestinians thought they might have a friend in Obama because of his friendships in that community, despite the fact that his positions have never been particularly pro-Palestinian.
"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb, citing Obama's friendship with Khalidi, who is now a professor at Columbia University.
He said the video could, among other things, show how Obama responded to a poem recited at the party accusing Israel of "terrorism" and warning of consequences for U.S. support for Israel, which Goldfarb described as "hate speech."
"The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job — make information public," he said.
The campaign hadn't previously demanded the video, though conservative bloggers have, and neither other reporters nor McCain's researchers have been able to dig up a copy.
Khalidi is a controversial figure, reviled by pro-Israel activists, though not a marginal one. A former professor at the University of Chicago, he's now Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia, and respected by many in academia. He's been criticized most for saying that Palestinians have a right to resist Israeli occupation and has been described as a former P.L.O. spokesman, a label he has denied.
The paper hasn't explained its unwillingness to release the video, and Peter Wallsten, who found the tape and wrote about it, declined to discuss it with me last night. He forwarded an e-mail that the paper has sent readers who have complained as conservative blogs raise the issue.
"Over six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light," wrote the readers' representative, Jamie Gold.
L.A. Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan wouldn't discuss the decision not to release the tape in detail.
"When we reported on the tape six months ago, that was our full report," she said, and asked, "Does Politico release unpublished information?"
The answer to that question is yes — Politico and most news outlets constantly make available videos and documents, after describing them in part, which is why the Times' decision not to release the video is puzzling. My instinct, and many reporters', is to share as much source material as possible.
Critics have suggested that the Times is witholding the video for political reasons, but there are other possibilities: competitive reasons, or simply out of tradition. In the mechanics of reporting, there's another possibility as well. The video may have been given to the paper on the condition it not be released, or releasing it could compromise its source.
But the Times hasn't explained the move, and the McCain campaign is turning up the heat on a story that, whether or not the tape is released, is a reminder that some of Obama's Hyde Park friends stand well to the left of his stated positions.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/McCain_camp_demands_LA_Times_video.html?showall
________________________________________________
Not a smart move by the LA Times. If this were a non-issue then they just made it an issue by refusing to release the video.
If I were the Obama camp, I would encourage the LA Times to release the video immediately. If anything to dispel any question about Obama's connection with Rashid Khalidi.
TheEschaton
10-28-2008, 05:02 PM
Another non-issue raises his head. The guy has a chair at Columbia University for Christ's sake.
If I were the Obama camp, I would encourage the LA Times to release the video immediately. If anything to dispel any question about Obama's connection with Rashid Khalidi.
Why? Clearly I'm no political analyst but personally I'd ignore it as the non-issue that it most likely is. If it gains traction then you deal with it but for the time being why give the issue any credence. A week from the election I'm sure the Obama camp has bigger fish to fry than pandering to conservative bloggers and giving the McCain campaign anything that they might want regardless of what's on it.
Why? Clearly I'm no political analyst but personally I'd ignore it as the non-issue that it most likely is. If it gains traction then you deal with it but for the time being why give the issue any credence. A week from the election I'm sure the Obama camp has bigger fish to fry than pandering to conservative bloggers and giving the McCain campaign anything that they might want regardless of what's on it.
Simply because news outlets have already said (like Politico) that its common practice to release video along with the story.
By acting uncommonly in the reporting of a story that again relates to the people Obama associates with it creates doubt where there probably should not be any. The more they deny the release the more it will raise eyebrows thus becoming more of an issue.
Simply because news outlets have already said (like Politico) that its common practice to release video along with the story.
By acting uncommonly in the reporting of a story that again relates to the people Obama associates with it creates doubt where there probably should not be any. The more they deny the release the more it will raise eyebrows thus becoming more of an issue.
Yes but the practices of the LA Times has nothing to do with Obama. Why should the Obama campaign comment on it either way is really what I'm getting at.
Yes but the practices of the LA Times has nothing to do with Obama. Why should the Obama campaign comment on it either way is really what I'm getting at.
I never said the Obama camp should comment on it.
I said the Obama camp should encourage the LA Times to release the video.
I never said the Obama camp should comment on it.
I said the Obama camp should encourage the LA Times to release the video.
Is it really in his interest to give McCain anything he wants at this point in time regardless of the magnitude?
Jorddyn
10-28-2008, 05:17 PM
If anything to dispel any question about Obama's connection with Rashid Khalidi
This video is a no-win situation for the Obama campaign.
Situation 1: Obama appears nowhere in the video, nor does anything questionable appear in the video. Speculation still exists as to what happened, and opens door to conspiracy theory that the Times edited out any questionable footage.
Situation 2: Obama appears in the video, but nothing questionable happens. Specualation exists about what happened at the party outside the scope of the video, and still opens the door to the theory that the times edited the video.
Situation 3: Obama does not appear in the video, but the supposed poem does. Speculation exists over whether he was actually still there, and if he was, what was his reaction? And did the times edit the video?
Situation 4: Obama appears in the video, poem appears in the video. Do we get to see his response? Does he walk up and punch the poet in the face, does he laugh, does he sit in the corner quietly? What IS the appropriate response? Are any of these acceptable? Did he have foreknowledge of what was going to happen? Should he have?
This video is just chum for right wing bloggers, and can't help the Obama campaign regardless of the contents. I can see why he wouldn't want it released, and why McCain would.
Is it really in his interest to give McCain anything he wants at this point in time regardless of the magnitude?
It is if it gives fuel to create doubt.
Unless you're of the belief that Obama is already a landslide winner and it does not matter what Obama does from this point forward.
If you're in the frame of mind of the last thought, then that would indeed make me smile. Because thats a dangerous place to be IMO.
Moist Happenings
10-28-2008, 05:20 PM
Is it really in his interest to give McCain anything he wants at this point in time regardless of the magnitude?
I think at this stage unless it's a video of Obama dropping puppies off of a highway bridge at rush hour it wouldn't make a difference. The suppression of the video, while not a choice made by Obama's campaign can open the road for McCain's campaign to suggest that there's some sort of "caught you red handed" incriminating evidence on it. At worst it's an even trade. Maybe it has something unfavorable to Obama's campaign on it, but it's probably just about equal to the damage McCain's campaign can cause throwing out doubt about it.
Edited to add: And yeah, like Gan said there I'm one of those "it's already a landslide" people.
It is if it gives fuel to create doubt.
Unless you're of the belief that Obama is already a landslide winner and it does not matter what Obama does from this point forward.
If you're in the frame of mind of the last thought, then that would indeed make me smile. Because thats a dangerous place to be IMO.
I'm no fortuneteller I wont believe anyone's won until the votes are cast. The only doubt I can see cast is whether or not you believe the accuracy of the reporting done by the LA Times.
Jorddyn
10-28-2008, 05:22 PM
By acting uncommonly in the reporting of a story that again relates to the people Obama associates with it creates doubt where there probably should not be any. The more they deny the release the more it will raise eyebrows thus becoming more of an issue.
No, what's causing doubt is the articles about the LA Times "refusing" to release the video even though McCain is "demanding" it.
Maybe their source doesn't want it released. Maybe they only have rights to summarize it. Maybe the guy who sold them the tape is shown on the video with his mistress. Maybe it's actually a huge black panther rally. Or maybe they realize it's a non-issue and don't want to waste their time and have their bandwidth abused.
Keller
10-28-2008, 05:23 PM
Question: Why is it a negative to have a President with the respect of both Israel and Palestine?
McShame is trying very hard to tarnish his legacy for the sake of an election he's clearly losing.
Daniel
10-28-2008, 05:31 PM
I never said the Obama camp should comment on it.
I said the Obama camp should encourage the LA Times to release the video.
Why would the Obama waste it's time dealing with an issue that is clearly a distraction?
What planet are you on that you think that Obama owes anything to the McCain by validating this bullshit?
The vast majority of the American people thought McCain was a D-bag for pushing the Bill Ayers issue. It looks better for Obama to just ignore it and paint this as a desperate attempt by McCain to distance himself from the issues. Again.
I'm no fortuneteller I wont believe anyone's won until the votes are cast. The only doubt I can see cast is whether or not you believe the accuracy of the reporting done by the LA Times.
Considering that this is not the first nor only time the questionable relationship Obama has with Rashid Khalidi. This would or could confirm suspicions of a nefarious association where one should not be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Khalidi#Allegations_of_PLO_connections
http://web.archive.org/web/20070101030930/http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040708-083635-4366r.htm
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story
Warriorbird
10-28-2008, 05:37 PM
Seems like another failed October surprise to me.
Considering that this is not the first nor only time the questionable relationship Obama has with Rashid Khalidi. This would or could confirm suspicions of a nefarious association where one should not be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Khalidi#Allegations_of_PLO_connections
http://web.archive.org/web/20070101030930/http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040708-083635-4366r.htm
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story
Obama has never said he wasn't at the dinner or doesn't know Khalidi, to my knowledge.
Jorddyn
10-28-2008, 05:42 PM
This would or could confirm suspicions of a nefarious association where one should not be.
Or this could be a video of a party that shows us nothing worthwhile and only leads to more questions.
Obama has never said he wasn't at the dinner or doesn't know Khalidi, to my knowledge.
Agreed. I've never heard him deny his association either. Thats not the direction the doubt will be cast though. IMO
Or this could be a video of a party that shows us nothing worthwhile and only leads to more questions.
Exactly!
So why not release it?
Jorddyn
10-28-2008, 05:46 PM
Originally Posted by Jorddyn
Or this could be a video of a party that shows us nothing worthwhile and only leads to more questions.
Exactly!
So why not release it?
See bolded section, and my post #8.
So its a bad thing to ask questions?
Daniel
10-28-2008, 05:47 PM
So its a bad thing to ask questions?
Stop being a jackass.
Jorddyn
10-28-2008, 05:48 PM
See bolded section, and my post #8.
See bolded section.
Stop being a jackass.
Daniel thinks its bad to ask questions.
Check.
See bolded section.
I did, and I disagree with your synopsis.
:shrug:
Keller
10-28-2008, 05:49 PM
Stop being a jackass.
Stop being tall.
Daniel
10-28-2008, 05:50 PM
Daniel thinks its bad to ask questions.
Check.
No. Daniel thinks you're an idiot for throwing retarded partisan shit out there only to retreat behind the "I was only asking questions!" curtain.
You're an idiot for doing it and you're doubly an idiot for thinking that people don't see right through you.
Stop being tall.
Stop being stupid.
Jorddyn
10-28-2008, 05:50 PM
I did, and I disagree with your synopsis.
Ok, so which extremely poignant and valid questions do you believe could be answered by this video?
No. Daniel thinks you're an idiot for throwing retarded partisan shit out there only to retreat behind the "I was only asking questions!" curtain.
You're an idiot for doing it and you're doubly an idiot for thinking that people don't see right through you.
Thank God the world does not revolve around what Daniel thinks.
Ok, so which extremely poignant and valid questions do you believe could be answered by this video?
1. What exactly was said during this event and by whom?
2. And what was Obama's reaction to what was said?
Daniel
10-28-2008, 05:52 PM
Thank God the world does not revolve around what Daniel thinks.
Nice.
I'm glad putting me on ignore worked out well for you.
It must be awesome living in a dream world where people actually think you're intelligent and moderate.
Agreed. I've never heard him deny his association either. Thats not the direction the doubt will be cast though. IMO
So how would it confirm or deny a 'nefarious' association? If he never denied he was there and per your wiki article already commented on his association? Really all the video does is give McCain last minute ad fodder to visually link the two 5 years ago or it refutes the reporting of the LA Times which I doubt Obama really cares that much about.
Jorddyn
10-28-2008, 05:55 PM
1. What exactly was said during this event and by whom?
The Times piece notes what is likely the most questionable act, which is the poem. McCain just wants a 5 second blip for a commercial.
2. And what was Obama's reaction to what was said?
What would be a valid response? (I already asked this) And do you truly believe the camera was trained on him during that time?
The Times piece notes what is likely the most questionable act, which is the poem. McCain just wants a 5 second blip for a commercial.
So you've seen the video? Great! Link plz.
What would be a valid response? (I already asked this) And do you truly believe the camera was trained on him during that time?
To answer that one would need to see the video. ;)
So how would it confirm or deny a 'nefarious' association? If he never denied he was there and per your wiki article already commented on his association? Really all the video does is give McCain last minute ad fodder to visually link the two 5 years ago or it refutes the reporting of the LA Times which I doubt Obama really cares that much about.
So you've seen the video too?
:wtf:
So you've seen the video too?
:wtf:
How very Mabusesque of you.
Jorddyn
10-28-2008, 06:04 PM
So you've seen the video? Great! Link plz.
Nope. Didn't say I had. Logic dictates that a news organization reporting on a video is going to include the highlights in their release, which I did in fact read.
To answer that one would need to see the video.
You need to see the video of Obama responding to answer what would be a valid response for Obama to make regarding a poem accusing Israel of terrorism? You can't tell me if you think that walking out, standing up and telling them to be quiet, punching the guy in the face, sitting quietly, or ignoring it would be appropriate? Come on. You know as well as I do regardless of his response, people would find fault. If he's not on the video, people will find fault that he didn't jump in front of the camera and voice his disdain. If he voices his disdain, it wasn't loud enough or quick enough, or perhaps was rude to his host. If it was quick and loud and somehow not rude, then it's just another example of him stealing the spotlight.
You need to see the video of Obama responding to answer what would be a valid response for Obama to make regarding a poem accusing Israel of terrorism? You can't tell me if you think that walking out, standing up and telling them to be quiet, punching the guy in the face, sitting quietly, or ignoring it would be appropriate? Come on. You know as well as I do regardless of his response, people would find fault. If he's not on the video, people will find fault that he didn't jump in front of the camera and voice his disdain. If he voices his disdain, it wasn't loud enough or quick enough, or perhaps was rude to his host. If it was quick and loud and somehow not rude, then it's just another example of him stealing the spotlight.
So in light of assumed predisposition the people should not be able to judge for themselves what was said and by whom and what his reactions were to what was said?
Please comrade, a little credit should be given to the people to come to a reasonable conclusion without the assistance of the state.
Warriorbird
10-28-2008, 06:08 PM
No reason for the Times to give into political terrorism.
Jorddyn
10-28-2008, 06:10 PM
So in light of assumed predisposition the people should not be able to judge for themselves what was said and by whom and what his reactions were to what was said?
In light of the assumed predisposition, Barack Obama has no reason to encourage the LA Times to release this video.
Please comrade, a little credit should be given to the people to come to a reasonable conclusion without the assistance of the state.
Please enlighten me on the state powers that the LA Times holds, as they are the entity currently not releasing the video.
So how would it confirm or deny a 'nefarious' association? If he never denied he was there and per your wiki article already commented on his association? Really all the video does is give McCain last minute ad fodder to visually link the two 5 years ago or it refutes the reporting of the LA Times which I doubt Obama really cares that much about.
Actually, the association between Obama and Khalid already exists. The question at hand is if Khalid (and his associations) make the relationship nefarious. If the meeting was as innocent as the Times makes it out to be, then again, there's no harm in releasing the video and dispelling the doubt. Much like how Obama attempted to dispel the doubt in the last debate between himself and Ayres, by addressing it directly.
By not addressing the issue, even privately with the Times with encouragement to release the video, it raises doubt as to what took place at the meeting, which in turn sheds doubt on Khalid's character, which in turn casts doubt on Obama's relationship with yet another questionable character'd person. Furthermore it just demonstrates more media bias in assisting one candidate over another - through the refusal to relase the 'harmless' video.
In my opinion, they should release the video.
In light of the assumed predisposition, Barack Obama has no reason to encourage the LA Times to release this video.
Thats your opinion.
Please enlighten me on the state powers that the LA Times holds, as they are the entity currently not releasing the video.
I'm sorry you missed the communist analagy to your assumption that you know whats better for everyone rather than letting everyone make that decision themselves. :(
Actually, the association between Obama and Khalid already exists. The question at hand is if Khalid (and his associations) make the relationship nefarious. If the meeting was as innocent as the Times makes it out to be, then again, there's no harm in releasing the video and dispelling the doubt. Much like how McCain attempted to dispel the doubt in the last debate between himself and Ayres.
I don't particularly believe that there is harm in releasing the video. My defense has been that Obama publically or privately at this point in the race shouldn't be encouraging in anyway the media to kowtow to McCain demands.
By not addressing the issue, even privately with the Times with encouragement to release the video, it raises doubt as to what took place at the meeting, which in turn sheds doubt on Khalid's character, which in turn casts doubt on Obama's relationship with yet another questionable character'd person. Furthermore it just demonstrates more media bias in assisting one candidate over another - through the refusal to relase the 'harmless' video.
In my opinion, they should release the video.
At which point it's again about whether or not you believe the LA Times reporting is complete and accurate. Which has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with your faith in the LA Times.
I don't particularly believe that there is harm in releasing the video. My defense has been that Obama publically or privately at this point in the race shouldn't be encouraging in anyway the media to kowtow to McCain demands.
I understand your position. Political strategy-wise I think it will do more harm than good not to seek its release. Again, a mere difference of opinion.
At which point it's again about whether or not you believe the LA Times reporting is complete and accurate. Which has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with your faith in the LA Times.
Incorrect. I'm not attempting to judge if the LA Times reported the story accurately. Its more of a question as to what was said during this meeting by those whom associate with Khalid and what Obama's response was to what was said. If there's direct evidence that can put the doubt to rest, then it should by all means be released. One would assume an unedited video of the event that night would do just that.
Daniel
10-28-2008, 06:46 PM
Why would the Obama waste it's time dealing with an issue that is clearly a distraction?
What planet are you on that you think that Obama owes anything to the McCain by validating this bullshit?
The vast majority of the American people thought McCain was a D-bag for pushing the Bill Ayers issue. It looks better for Obama to just ignore it and paint this as a desperate attempt by McCain to distance himself from the issues. Again.
^^^
Seriously. Stfu already.
Jorddyn
10-28-2008, 06:58 PM
I'm sorry you missed the communist analagy to your assumption that you know whats better for everyone rather than letting everyone make that decision themselves.
I'm sorry you completely missed my point, so let me make it clear.
There is absolutely no reason for Obama to encourage the LA Times to release this video. The ability of people, Republicans and Democrats alike, to miscontrue what is seen and what is said is incredibly high (as often evidenced on this very board), and it will wind up being nothing more than a sound bite for the opposition.
And that's far from Communism. To use a word you perhaps have heard before, it's "strategery."
I'm sorry you completely missed my point, so let me make it clear.
There is absolutely no reason for Obama to encourage the LA Times to release this video. The ability of people, Republicans and Democrats alike, to miscontrue what is seen and what is said is incredibly high (as often evidenced on this very board), and it will wind up being nothing more than a sound bite for the opposition.
And that's far from Communism. To use a word you perhaps have heard before, it's "strategery."
Thats your opinion.
Jorddyn
10-28-2008, 07:00 PM
If there's direct evidence that can put the doubt to rest, then it should by all means be released. One would assume an unedited video of the event that night would do just that.
One would assume that the camera was unlikely to be focused on Obama exclusively, except perhaps during his speech.
Jorddyn
10-28-2008, 07:06 PM
Thats your opinion.
Which section? On what would be done with the video, or on how your classification of my post as Communist is completely ridiculous?
Stretch
10-28-2008, 07:15 PM
I'm confused as to why Obama's campaign should do anything to accommodate the slightest request from the McCain camp.
Just because Palin helped them out doesn't mean they should help her campaign.
EDIT: My personal stance on this, the thing with Ayers, and other associations -
Having gone through a pretty extensive background check when I was interviewing with the FBI, I'm pretty sure that a US Senator (let alone Presidential hopeful) has already been through the third degree by government agencies. And if he hasn't, then I think we have some problems.
Warriorbird
10-28-2008, 07:22 PM
So... we've got Gan giving negative rep rather than posting.
This is an attempt at an October surprise. It is sort of made of fail because it would involve the paper doing something against a candidate it itself endorsed for no apparent profit. While it might energize the Republican base I doubt it will even rise to the level of the 'OMG, wealth redistribution!' interview clip. It doesn't have the pop or bite (having no actual media) to go viral.
Now... if the Republicans came up with pictures of Obama, blitzed on coke and weed, at some of Kool Herc's early hip hop era parties and hassling white women or something... that could be a nice October Surprise.... that or actually catching Osama.
TheEschaton
10-28-2008, 07:22 PM
I'm glad we have such reasonable moderates on this forum, like Gan, and not idiots who make mountains out of molehills, and, when confronted with their idiocy and unreasonable, plug their ears up and chant, "That's your opinion!"
-TheE-
Warriorbird
10-28-2008, 07:23 PM
And pitch negative rep when called on it! Ooh!
Keller
10-28-2008, 07:29 PM
I'm glad we have such reasonable moderates on this forum, like Gan, and not idiots who make mountains out of molehills, and, when confronted with their idiocy and unreasonable, plug their ears up and chant, "That's your opinion!"
-TheE-
We're just discussing and asking questions, STFU.
Mabus
10-28-2008, 07:36 PM
Now... if the Republicans came up with pictures of Obama, blitzed on coke and weed, at some of Kool Herc's early hip hop era parties and hassling white women or something... that could be a nice October Surprise.... that or actually catching Osama.
Obama's admitted drug use, including cocaine, is not news to most people.
I actually applaud his honest answer on marijuana use:
YouTube - Barack Obama "I inhaled frequently" "That was the point" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpBzQI_7ez8)
His stance on decriminalization of marijuana has changed, but that is to be expected. I do not advocate use, but I do believe that we should not imprison people for using a plant.
That said...
Obama sits at a table with his friends Ayers and Khalidi, while speakers call Israel names, and it is not important?
Of course it is. It speaks to his ability to long associate with people that say vicious things about others. It could definately speak to the large number of Jewish voters in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere as they make their decision.
The LA times already endorsed Obama. This is just protection of Obama from a possible voter backlash over the truth, and is just a second endorsement of the worst kind; Hiding the truth.
This is "Electioneering by the Media".
Warriorbird
10-28-2008, 07:41 PM
Yep... kinda like what Fox does every night.
Mabus
10-28-2008, 07:42 PM
Yep... kinda like what Fox does every night.
Fox has videos of McCain sitting down with a domestic terrorist and a PLO member, both of which are his long time associates, while people berate Israel?
Source?
Jorddyn
10-28-2008, 07:45 PM
This is just protection of Obama from a possible voter backlash over the truth, and is just a second endorsement of the worst kind; Hiding the truth.
If their goal was to hide the truth, why did they release the story at all?
Warriorbird
10-28-2008, 07:50 PM
Fox has videos of McCain sitting down with a domestic terrorist and a PLO member, both of which are his long time associates, while people berate Israel?
Source?
Fox hawked the false racist Obama follower attacking McCain follower story really rapidly. There've been countless 'October surprise' attempts and accusations of socialism and Marxism... much like your avatar.
I thought old people had more taste. I guess you want to bring McCarthy back. I can understand old people missing him. You remember how well he ended though?
Mabus
10-28-2008, 08:06 PM
I guess you want to bring McCarthy back.
I'm bringing sexy back!
(this post was Justin fun) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAT5ypTjKOI)
Crazy Bard
10-28-2008, 08:30 PM
This thread is so retarded ..
So... we've got Gan giving negative rep rather than posting.
This is an attempt at an October surprise. It is sort of made of fail because it would involve the paper doing something against a candidate it itself endorsed for no apparent profit. While it might energize the Republican base I doubt it will even rise to the level of the 'OMG, wealth redistribution!' interview clip. It doesn't have the pop or bite (having no actual media) to go viral.
Now... if the Republicans came up with pictures of Obama, blitzed on coke and weed, at some of Kool Herc's early hip hop era parties and hassling white women or something... that could be a nice October Surprise.... that or actually catching Osama.
Firstly, I've actually done both in this thread. I've thrown a negative rep out as well as a full page full of posts. Nice shift in attempting to characterize assigning negative rep as a party foul, especially when you've done the same in the past. Not to mention I had to step away for a few hours, you know that old saying: Real Life > Internet. So quit being obtuse (well, you can at least try right?).
Secondly, I sincerely hope you believe the GOP base wont pick up on this. In fact, for this election I'm counting on exactly that.
I'm glad we have such reasonable moderates on this forum, like Gan, and not idiots who make mountains out of molehills, and, when confronted with their idiocy and unreasonable, plug their ears up and chant, "That's your opinion!"
-TheE-
Thought you knew, with evidence that I'm voting McCain instead of Obama and with Daniel's tell all poll identifying me as a lying bag of shit or whatever it was (yes, his poll is reminiscent of how the elections are going to go this year) now I'm a GOP mouthpiece. Explain to me how your opinion of me really matters? Seriously?
With regards to my stating "Thats your opinion", what else do you expect when the argument turns so repetitive? He's stated his opinion, I've stated mine. He's countered my opinion and I've countered his. There's really not a basis of fact to rule one way or another (WAIT A MINUTE! YOU'VE SEEN THE VIDEO!!!! link plz.).
Really, thanks for playing the typical democrat role in going after the messenger. Too bad your effort is wasted here. It definately wont change my vote.
If their goal was to hide the truth, why did they release the story at all?
I dont see it as hiding. I see it as manipulation.
We're just discussing and asking questions, STFU.
Dude, stop being a pussy and actually participate in the thread. I know you'll get your feelings hurt from time to time. Its ok though. This is only the internet - the sting wont last too long.
Warriorbird
10-28-2008, 11:42 PM
The critical audience is independents. We'll see if it catches with them. Both bases are as solidified as they will be at this point.
Election 2008: Objective journalism the loser
By Michael Graham | Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Did you see that amazing video obtained by the Los Angeles Times of Sen. Barack Obama toasting a prominent former PLO member at an Arab American Action Network meeting in 2003? The video in which Obama gives Yasser Arafat’s frontman a warm embrace, as Bill Ayers look on?
You haven’t seen it? Me, neither. The Los Angeles Times refuses to release it.
And so an incriminating video of Obama literally “palling around” with PLO supporters becomes one more nail in the coffin of “objective journalism.”
Alas, the obit for objective reporting has been buried - along with the stories about Obama’s 2001 support for court-imposed “redistribution of wealth” and Joe Biden’s latest gaffe.
For the record (that’s J-school talk for “I actually know what I’m talking about for a change”), I am not a journalist. I’m an opinion writer and talk show host. But I admire reporters tremendously. I married one. My oldest son is named for the great H. L. Mencken.
So it is particularly heartbreaking for me to see the death of objective journalism. And believe me - it is stone cold dead. Sacrificed on the altar of service to Barack Obama.
Former New York Times [NYT (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/external/ibd.morningstar.com/quicktake/standard/client/shell/AP707.html?CN=AP707&view=quote&valid=NO&set=new&SITE=MABOH&SECTION=DJSP_COMPLETE&ticker=NYT)] columnist and veteran newspaperman Michael Malone knows it.
“I’ve begun - for the first time in my adult life - to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living,” he said.
Malone is disturbed by the “shameless support” journalists have been giving the Obama campaign. Where’s the hardball coverage for Obama they give McCain?
Instead, journalists are “actively serving as attack dogs for the [Obama/Biden] ticket.”
“That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault,” Malone points out. He blames the media, whose job it is to give Obama a thorough vetting “and has systematically refused to do so.”
This is hardly news to regular readers of the Boston Globe-Democrat, or viewers of MS-We-Hate-Bush. But when the Associated Press starts adding Kool-Aid at the water cooler, we readers are in real trouble.
Jay Newton-Small, a longtime AP reporter, points out in a column in the Washington Post that her old employer has begun practicing “accountability journalism,” which is a media euphemism for “picking the good guys and the bad guys.”
“Some of the most eyebrow-raising stories this presidential-election cycle have come from a surprising source: the stodgy old AP,” Newton-Small wrote.
The AP, once the gold standard of unbiased “hard news,” is now just another voice in the Spin Room.
Newton-Small asks:
“When the news organization entrusted with calling elections sets off down the slippery slope of news analysis, it’s hard not to wonder: Is the journalism world losing its North Star, the one source that could be relied upon to provide ‘Just the facts, ma’am’ ?”
Facts? Who needs ’em, when we’ve got Obama’s magic tax plan to promote and an uppity Alaska governor to trash?
At the risk of violating union rules, allow me to do a bit of reporting: A new study by the Pew Research Center found that, while 71 percent of Obama’s recent media coverage has been “positive” or “neutral,” almost 60 percent of McCain’s coverage over the same period has been “decidedly negative.”
And how much positive coverage did the media give McCain? Fourteen percent.
The American people have figured this out.
“By a margin of 70 percent to 9 percent,” another Pew study reported, “Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4.”
The percentage of Americans who rate reporters as objective and not favoring either candidate? Eight percent.
My friends in the Partisan Press, your reputation has now fallen lower than both President Bush (25 percent) and the Democratic Congress (18 percent). Journalistic integrity now ranks along side communicable diseases and nuclear mishaps.
Obama will likely be the next president. He will use that power to do things both good and bad. But when Americans look for tough, honest journalists to challenge him, where will we find them?
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/letters/view.bg?articleid=1128260
_________________________________________
Interesting Op-Ed.
Hits on several issues we're dealing with this campaign season...
Daniel
10-28-2008, 11:44 PM
Except. The guy has never workd for the PLO and it's all simply a fucking bullshit political tactic.
Shut the fuck up already. no one cares about this shit but ass hurt republicans like yourself incredulous at the fact that you're getting smashed in the polls.
Warriorbird
10-28-2008, 11:46 PM
Herald endorsed McCain. Was owned by a former News Corp exec after Murdoch was forced to get rid of it.
Sort of like the game we see played out on Fox.
'Fair and balanced.'
Graham's also written a series of hack articles about the 'evil leftist media.' Oooh.
Except. The guy has never workd for the PLO and it's all simply a fucking bullshit political tactic.
Shut the fuck up already. no one cares about this shit but ass hurt republicans like yourself incredulous at the fact that you're getting smashed in the polls.
Smashed in the polls? LOL Have you seen the polls lately?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll102/learningtewfly/polls.jpg
Will you be sharing some of that koolaid?
Warriorbird
10-28-2008, 11:57 PM
7 points is pretty crazy in a country this divided.
Daniel
10-28-2008, 11:57 PM
6.7 when the average margin of victory of most elections since the 80's has been <2?
Yea.
Moist Happenings
10-28-2008, 11:58 PM
I have a feeling at this point that http://www.electoral-vote.com/ is going to be very close to the actual outcome, Gan, but I agree the polls don't indicate a complete landslide at this point.
Daniel
10-28-2008, 11:59 PM
Also. You can point to whatever poll you want to say that McCain is doing fine. You need look no further than the news coming out of the campaign itself and what republican strategists across the country are advocating to see the writing on the wall.
We'll see what happens on Wednesday, but it's delusional to suggest that Mccain isn't looking at a beat down right now.
Now there's an interesting question.
What are the polling historical numbers pre-election for US Presidential Elections for the past 30 years.
Time to get Google'ing.
Moist Happenings
10-29-2008, 12:08 AM
Now there's an interesting question.
What are the polling historical numbers pre-election for US Presidential Elections for the past 30 years.
Time to get Google'ing.
I was thinking that same thing a bit ago. That electoral-vote.com site was only created as of the 2004 election, but it ended up showing Kerry getting 262 electoral votes, and Bush 261. Pretty close, but we were of course pretty certain it was going to be a real close decision on the whole prior to election day anyway.
Also. You can point to whatever poll you want to say that McCain is doing fine. You need look no further than the news coming out of the campaign itself and what republican strategists across the country are advocating to see the writing on the wall.
We'll see what happens on Wednesday, but it's delusional to suggest that Mccain isn't looking at a beat down right now.
First off, I really do not put much faith into polls of any kind. However, they do make a good discussion topic here on the PC. Ergo, I dont mind discussing them.
Secondly, I sincerely hope Obama does well next Wednesday. Because I would really hate to hear that you threw away an honorable military service history and a luxurious state department career (and a college degree) by throwing bricks through windows and stealing flat screen TV's in protest.
I was thinking that same thing a bit ago. That electoral-vote.com site was only created as of the 2004 election, but it ended up showing Kerry getting 262 electoral votes, and Bush 261. Pretty close, but we were of course pretty certain it was going to be a real close decision on the whole prior to election day anyway.
Keep in mind I"m specifically interested in seeing how the polling numbers looked pre-election. Not the predicted electoral numbers.
I want to see what numbers Gallup, Rasmussen, TIPP, etc. were throwing up pre-election.
Daniel brought up a valid point, now I'd like to verify it.
Warriorbird
10-29-2008, 12:16 AM
Polls are all over the map for the most part.
Moist Happenings
10-29-2008, 12:16 AM
Keep in mind I"m specifically interested in seeing how the polling numbers looked pre-election. Not the predicted electoral numbers.
I want to see what numbers Gallup, Rasmussen, TIPP, etc. were throwing up pre-election.
Daniel brought up a valid point, now I'd like to verify it.
I was just using the electoral vote estimates to demonstrate the overall accuracy of what they did. All their estimates were based off of pre-election polls, though admittedly I haven't looked through them to find out the exact numbers. Pretty sure it's available on that site though. Also, if you mouse over the states on the main page it mentions elections even prior to that one as well. They may have input polling data from some other previous elections into their database as well, so it may be available there. I don't have the time to really dig into what's there right now though.
Just wanted to point out to you that it might be a good resource if you're looking for previous poll numbers.
Polls are all over the map for the most part.
You're kidding, no?
...
Daniel
10-29-2008, 12:19 AM
First off, I really do not put much faith into polls of any kind. However, they do make a good discussion topic here on the PC. Ergo, I dont mind discussing them.
Secondly, I sincerely hope Obama does well next Wednesday. Because I would really hate to hear that you threw away an honorable military service history and a luxurious state department career (and a college degree) by throwing bricks through windows and stealing flat screen TV's in protest.
Lol. You're an idiot.
Seriously. Try harder.
Lol. You're an idiot.
Seriously. Try harder.
Such hate.
Have you considered counseling?
Warriorbird
10-29-2008, 12:21 AM
From CNN
However, in what might be a bit of sobering news for the McCain campaign, since 1956, front-runners in late October lost the popular vote only twice after being ahead in the Gallup poll a week before Election Day, according to that polling organization's analysis.
Obama held a lead in both of Gallup's likely voter tracking polls released Tuesday
Warriorbird
10-29-2008, 12:53 AM
Hypocrisy Update:
During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.
A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)
The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."
Hypocrisy Update:
During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.
A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)
The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."
Way cool.
Link to source?
*
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/10/28/19325/305
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/IRIForm9901998.pdf
page 15 according to the story
Warriorbird
10-29-2008, 01:19 AM
Original source was apparently Breitbart doing some database searching (involving http://www.foreignaffairs.org/). That's not claimed on the posting though. Makes sense that he wouldn't want to publicly anti-scoop Drudge... man's still his employer, isn't he?
EDIT: Research is being credited to Seth Walls who works for the Huffington Post on Daily Kos. Who knows.
The documents are here.
http://www.iri.org/newsarchive/2007/2007-10-22-News-AP-McCain.asp
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/IRIForm9901998.pdf
Huffington writeup:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-work-of-pal_n_138606.html
Methais
10-29-2008, 01:59 AM
Video's up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TiQCJXpbKg
Keller
10-29-2008, 07:01 AM
Lol. You're an idiot.
Seriously. Try harder.
Wow.
Just, wow.
I can't imagine why I've given up on political threads when "discussion" turns to overt racism in the form of, "Hey nigger, don't loot if Obama doesn't win, LOLOLOL!"
Seriously. What, the, fuck.
Daniel
10-29-2008, 07:09 AM
Such hate.
Have you considered counseling?
Hate?
Are you delusional? Is this like the time you pointed to a poll and said "If I was an Obama supporter I'd be concerned because he's only up 4 points?"
I'd really consider projection as an unhealthy activity, but whatever. I'm thoroughly enjoying you running around like an idiot as you and you party go down in a blaze of glory.
Quick! Tell us again about how you're a proven moderate!
Daniel
10-29-2008, 07:10 AM
Wow.
Just, wow.
I can't imagine why I've given up on political threads when "discussion" turns to overt racism in the form of, "Hey nigger, don't loot if Obama doesn't win, LOLOLOL!"
Seriously. What, the, fuck.
It's okay. Gan said he was seriously considering voting for Obama. Or did you not hear?
Wow.
Just, wow.
I can't imagine why I've given up on political threads when "discussion" turns to overt racism in the form of, "Hey nigger, don't loot if Obama doesn't win, LOLOLOL!"
Seriously. What, the, fuck.
Oh snap, thats what it is... overt racisim. And here I thought it was just poking fun of Daniel saying if Obama doesnt win he would riot... Or was that if Obama was shot?
:banghead:
Stop being stupid. Oh wait...
Hate?
Are you delusional? Is this like the time you pointed to a poll and said "If I was an Obama supporter I'd be concerned because he's only up 4 points?"
I'd really consider projection as an unhealthy activity, but whatever. I'm thoroughly enjoying you running around like an idiot as you and you party go down in a blaze of glory.
Quick! Tell us again about how you're a proven moderate!
Projection? :rofl:
This is me poking fun at your faith in polls.
It's okay. Gan said he was seriously considering voting for Obama. Or did you not hear?
Oh, I'm so wounded that you dont believe me. And that you were so frought with concern that you made a poll asking people if I was full of shit concerning it.
I'm really flattered that you're such a big fan of mine. Thanks for being so predictable. Hell, if it werent for you and WB reacting to every thread/post I put up it would be no fun at all in the politics folder.
:lol:
Daniel
10-29-2008, 08:26 AM
Actually I said I'd only riot if he got shot. This of course was after mabus was openly wondering how many tv's would be stolen after the election by Obama supporters.
Daniel
10-29-2008, 08:28 AM
Projection? :rofl:
This is me poking fun at your faith in polls.
Oh, I'm so wounded that you dont believe me. And that you were so frought with concern that you made a poll asking people if I was full of shit concerning it.
I'm really flattered that you're such a big fan of mine. Thanks for being so predictable. Hell, if it werent for you and WB reacting to every thread/post I put up it would be no fun at all in the politics folder.
:lol:
So why'd you ignore me then, buddy boy? Your actions speak louder than words.
Parkbandit
10-29-2008, 08:33 AM
Wait, why wouldn't the LA Times release the video if they had it? Isn't that the role of media.. to make information available to the public? If this was John McCain.. would they keep the tape to themselves until after the election?
If you answered no to that question.. you should be questioning the integrity of our media. If you answered yes to that question, you are a fucking retard.
Mabus
10-29-2008, 08:44 AM
Actually I said I'd only riot if he got shot. This of course was after mabus was openly wondering how many tv's would be stolen after the election by Obama supporters.
How many do you think will be?
Mabus
10-29-2008, 08:45 AM
Wait, why wouldn't the LA Times release the video if they had it? Isn't that the role of media.. to make information available to the public? If this was John McCain.. would they keep the tape to themselves until after the election?
If you answered no to that question.. you should be questioning the integrity of our media. If you answered yes to that question, you are a fucking retard.
QFT
Keller
10-29-2008, 08:45 AM
How many do you think will be?
When did you lose all sense of integrity?
Mabus
10-29-2008, 08:48 AM
When did you lose all sense of integrity?
Go back and read the post quoting the guy that was calling on everyone to form a mass protest if Obama loses, and to declare that the election was stolen.
This was a Democrat calling for the illegitimacy of the election, before the election, no matter how Obama lost.
And when did you ever believe you had any sense of integrity?
Keller
10-29-2008, 08:53 AM
And when did you ever believe you had any sense of integrity?
When I stopped taking the PC seriously because it's dominated by posters who decided that civil discourse and actual discussion took a backseat to being right and winning elections at all costs.
Keller
10-29-2008, 08:54 AM
Go back and read the post quoting the guy that was calling on everyone to form a mass protest if Obama loses, and to declare that the election was stolen.
This was a Democrat calling for the illegitimacy of the election, before the election, no matter how Obama lost.
I was mocking your use of rhetorical questions, you dipshit.
Mabus
10-29-2008, 08:54 AM
When I stopped taking the PC seriously because it's dominated by posters who decided that civil discourse and actual discussion took a backseat to being right and winning elections at all costs.
Yeah, screw those Obama supporters. I know what you mean.
;)
Keller
10-29-2008, 08:55 AM
Yeah, screw those Obama supporters. I know what you mean.
;)
It's on both sides. I wont argue that.
Kembal
10-29-2008, 09:03 AM
Wait, why wouldn't the LA Times release the video if they had it? Isn't that the role of media.. to make information available to the public? If this was John McCain.. would they keep the tape to themselves until after the election?
If you answered no to that question.. you should be questioning the integrity of our media. If you answered yes to that question, you are a fucking retard.
As the LA Times explains this morning:
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
In any case, this is beyond ridiculous that Khalidi is some type of nefarious character or something: McCain was head of an institute during the mid-90s that gave at least a half million dollars in research grants to Khalidi's research center, if not more.
Seriously, how inept is the McCain campaign?
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 09:08 AM
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
The source is obviously a communist for not allowing the American public to determine what they think of the video.
ElanthianSiren
10-29-2008, 09:10 AM
It's on both sides. I wont argue that.
That's what happens when you have a country very divided between two ideological viewpoints with huge visceral reactions when people dare to disagree with either side. One of my poli scie teachers had us study the present US and compare it to the fall of Rome. Some of it was pretty retarded. Some of it was very similar and pretty disconcerting.
TheEschaton
10-29-2008, 10:35 AM
McCain camp demands... 10-28-2008 11:28 PM I"m glad we have socialists like you who can divert attention away from valid questions by trying to character assasinate those who ask them. Obama would be so proud of you. -Gan
My contention, Gan, is that it's not a valid question, it's a wholly biased one not based on REALITY or the CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION.
For example, when someone asks a question like "How is Obama not like Karl Marx?" that, while it is technically a question, and even a question idiots are concerned with, it has no basis in reality, as Obama is nowhere near Karl Marx, and, in fact, only wants to raise tax levels to what they were under Clinton, one of the most moderate Democrats ever.
When you ask "Why won't the L.A. Times release this video of Obama palling around with this PLO spokesman?", it may be a question, and even one idiots are concerned with, but it is not based in any sort of reality or even realistic context, and thus is not a VALID question, but a BIASED question. Namely, for example, the L.A. Times assertion that it is confidential material. Or the fact that the man in question was NEVER a PLO spokesman, but IS a chair'ed professor at Columbia University, and advocates the (wholly reasonable, IMO) opinion that Palestinians have a right to resist Israeli aggression. Or the fact that McCain oversaw almost a half million dollar grant to this same man's efforts in the West Bank.
Now, maybe you're asking - why can't biased question be valid? Because the mere answering of them reinforces the bias, and not the truth.
-TheE-
Daniel
10-29-2008, 11:00 AM
Lol @ Gan being indignant about "Character Assassination".
What the hell do you think you are trying to do? You are calling into question his character by this relationship.
Whatever happened in these videos has absolutely nothing to do with his stated policies or goals as a candidate. Obama didn't speak there. He didn't espouse any policy positions. So why is this relevant? All you are trying to do is imply that he will promote certain policies simply by association with people who *may* be radical.
Talk about blantant hypocrisy. It's like you are losing your grip on reality.
So why'd you ignore me then, buddy boy? Your actions speak louder than words.
True, I had you on ignore for about 5 minutes but then it got really boring on the PC, so I lifted it. You never know how something is until you try it I suppose. Thanks for being there and never failing to deliver. :)
You are the bomb.
And when did you ever believe you had any sense of integrity?
QFT
It's on both sides. I wont argue that.
Not when confronted with it. At best you simply ignore what the Democrats pull and focus on the GOP. At worst you simply put people on ignore when confronted with it... and start campaigns of U2U's to other people encouraging them to do the same. ;)
My contention, Gan, is that it's not a valid question, it's a wholly biased one not based on REALITY or the CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION.
For example, when someone asks a question like "How is Obama not like Karl Marx?" that, while it is technically a question, and even a question idiots are concerned with, it has no basis in reality, as Obama is nowhere near Karl Marx, and, in fact, only wants to raise tax levels to what they were under Clinton, one of the most moderate Democrats ever.
When you ask "Why won't the L.A. Times release this video of Obama palling around with this PLO spokesman?", it may be a question, and even one idiots are concerned with, but it is not based in any sort of reality or even realistic context, and thus is not a VALID question, but a BIASED question. Namely, for example, the L.A. Times assertion that it is confidential material. Or the fact that the man in question was NEVER a PLO spokesman, but IS a chair'ed professor at Columbia University, and advocates the (wholly reasonable, IMO) opinion that Palestinians have a right to resist Israeli aggression. Or the fact that McCain oversaw almost a half million dollar grant to this same man's efforts in the West Bank.
Now, maybe you're asking - why can't biased question be valid? Because the mere answering of them reinforces the bias, and not the truth.
-TheE-
See, thats where we differ. I think that the only stupid question is one not asked. If its truly biased then that will out (the truth will out). And having any expectation of an unbiased media, where plainly there has not been for this election season, merely encourages me more to seek the information myself rather than relying on having it presented by said media. Oh, and the source excuse is merely that... an excuse.
This is why I feel it is important strategy wise for Obama to encourage the video's release.
Lol @ Gan being indignant about "Character Assassination".
What the hell do you think you are trying to do? You are calling into question his character by this relationship.
Reading comprehension FTL. Do us all a favor Dannyboy. Try looking at the larger picture and relating what I said to it.
Whatever happened in these videos has absolutely nothing to do with his stated policies or goals as a candidate. Obama didn't speak there. He didn't espouse any policy positions. So why is this relevant? All you are trying to do is imply that he will promote certain policies simply by association with people who *may* be radical.
Right, character and associations have nothing to do with how a person shapes their reality, their goals, or their persona. wink wink, nod nod.
Talk about blantant hypocrisy. It's like you are losing your grip on reality.
Not really, but I sure am having fun stirring you up.
Daniel
10-29-2008, 11:06 AM
True, I had you on ignore for about 5 minutes but then it got really boring on the PC, so I lifted it. You never know how something is until you try it I suppose. Thanks for being there and never failing to deliver. :)
You are the bomb.
That doesn't answer my question.
Not when confronted with it. At best you simply ignore what the Democrats pull and focus on the GOP. At worst you simply put people on ignore when confronted with it... and start campaigns of U2U's to other people encouraging them to do the same. ;)
Lol....right.
You're really one to talk here.
This is why I feel it is important strategy wise for Obama to encourage the video's release.
Yea. Good thing the Obama campaign isn't as stupid as you are.
Daniel
10-29-2008, 11:07 AM
Reading comprehension FTL. Do us all a favor Dannyboy. Try looking at the larger picture and relating what I said to it.
Right, character and associations have nothing to do with how a person shapes their reality, their goals, or their persona. wink wink, nod nod.
Not really, but I sure am having fun stirring you up.
So, you're all for character assassination then?
Why then the indignation at TheE calling you biased?
Oh right...
So, you're all for character assassination then?
Why then the indignation at TheE calling you biased?
Oh right...
:facepalm:
Keller
10-29-2008, 11:23 AM
I think it's fucking hilarious how Gan went from, "Maybe I'm voting for Obama, I've not decided," to Mabus/crb level of forum spamming about how terrible Obama is in a matter of what -- a month?
It further proves the point that once someone picks a side in American politics it becomes some sort of intrinsic competition and they need to constantly validate their decision by pointing out genuinely stupid shit.
Warriorbird
10-29-2008, 11:25 AM
That's not fair Keller. Gan posted stupid shit well before the election.
Keller
10-29-2008, 11:26 AM
That's not fair Keller. Gan posted stupid shit well before the election.
So did a lot of other people.
I think it's fucking hilarious how Gan went from, "Maybe I'm voting for Obama, I've not decided," to Mabus/crb level of forum spamming about how terrible Obama is in a matter of what -- a month?
It further proves the point that once someone picks a side in American politics it becomes some sort of intrinsic competition and they need to constantly validate their decision by pointing out genuinely stupid shit.
but but but... the Republicans do it!
:lol:
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 11:56 AM
See, thats where we differ. I think that the only stupid question is one not asked.
There are a billion stupid questions that can be asked. The campaigns have the right to address or ignore as they see fit.
Oh, and the source excuse is merely that... an excuse.
You've seen the contract between the LA Times and their source? Great! Link, please!
This is why I feel it is important strategy wise for Obama to encourage the video's release.
No, you want to give McCain a soundbite. Do you honestly and truly believe that if there was something sinister Obama did on said video, the Times would have ignored it in the article they wrote? If so, why did they bother to write the article at all?
There are a billion stupid questions that can be asked. The campaigns have the right to address or ignore as they see fit.
I never said they did not have that right. I merely stated that I think they should encourage the LA Times to release the video. I merely stated that I thought it would be wise for the Obama staff to do so strategically. In case you have not figured it out, thats my opinion.
You've seen the contract between the LA Times and their source? Great! Link, please!
LOL Touche.
No, you want to give McCain a soundbite. Do you honestly and truly believe that if there was something sinister Obama did on said video, the Times would have ignored it in the article they wrote? If so, why did they bother to write the article at all?
Incorrect. I want to see the video and make up my own mind. But thanks for telling me what I think. ;)
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 12:08 PM
You didn't answer my questions.
Do you honestly and truly believe that if there was something sinister Obama did on said video, the Times would have ignored it in the article they wrote? If so, why did they bother to write the article at all?
Do you honestly and truly believe that if there was something sinister Obama did on said video, the Times would have ignored it in the article they wrote? If so, why did they bother to write the article at all?
Yes, I think that possibility exists. Especially since the LA Times is on record as endorsing Obama.
Before I answer your next question, lets look at the story as it was printed in April of this year.
Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama
They consider him receptive despite his clear support of Israel.
By Peter Wallsten
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 10, 2008
CHICAGO — It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years.
And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.
At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."
One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."
Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House.
"I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates," said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, referring to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began after the 1967 war. More than his rivals for the White House, Ibish said, Obama sees a "moral imperative" in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions.
"That's my personal opinion," Ibish said, "and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons, and what he's said."
Aides say that Obama's friendships with Palestinian Americans reflect only his ability to interact with a wide diversity of people, and that his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been consistent. Obama has called himself a "stalwart" supporter of the Jewish state and its security needs. He believes in an eventual two-state solution in which Jewish and Palestinian nations exist in peace, which is consistent with current U.S. policy.
Obama also calls for the U.S. to talk to such declared enemies as Iran, Syria and Cuba. But he argues that the Palestinian militant organization Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, is an exception, calling it a terrorist group that should renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist before dialogue begins. That viewpoint, which also matches current U.S. policy, clashes with that of many Palestinian advocates who urge the United States and Israel to treat Hamas as a partner in negotiations.
"Barack's belief is that it's important to understand other points of view, even if you can't agree with them," said his longtime political strategist, David Axelrod.
Obama "can disagree without shunning or demonizing those with other views," he said. "That's far different than the suggestion that he somehow tailors his view."
Looking for clues
But because Obama is relatively new on the national political scene, and new to foreign policy questions such as the long-simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides have been looking closely for clues to what role he would play in that dispute.
And both sides, on certain issues, have interpreted Obama's remarks as supporting their point of view.
Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that "nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people." The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering "from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel" and to renounce violence.
Jewish leaders were satisfied with Obama's explanation, but some Palestinian leaders, including Ibish, took the original quotation as a sign of the candidate's empathy for their plight.
Obama's willingness to befriend Palestinian Americans and to hear their views also impressed, and even excited, a community that says it does not often have the ear of the political establishment.
Among other community events, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor and a leading intellectual in the Palestinian movement. According to a news account of the speech, Said called that day for a nonviolent campaign "against settlements, against Israeli apartheid."
The use of such language to describe Israel's policies has drawn vehement objection from Israel's defenders in the United States. A photo on the pro-Palestinian website the Electronic Intifada shows Obama and his wife, Michelle, engaged in conversation at the dinner table with Said, and later listening to Said's keynote address. Obama had taken an English class from Said as an undergraduate at Columbia University.
Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an "even-handed" approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama's specific criticisms.
Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.
Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn't talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.
Obama, through his aide Axelrod, denied he ever said those words, and Abunimah's account could not be independently verified.
"In no way did he take a position privately that he hasn't taken publicly and consistently," Axelrod said of Obama. "He always had expressed solicitude for the Palestinian people, who have been ill-served and have suffered greatly from the refusal of their leaders to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist."
In Chicago, one of Obama's friends was Khalidi, a highly visible figure in the Arab American community.
In the 1970s, when Khalidi taught at a university in Beirut, he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. In the early 1990s, he advised the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations. Khalidi now occupies a prestigious professorship of Arab studies at Columbia.
He is seen as a moderate in Palestinian circles, having decried suicide bombings against civilians as a "war crime" and criticized the conduct of Hamas and other Palestinian leaders. Still, many of Khalidi's opinions are troubling to pro-Israel activists, such as his defense of Palestinians' right to resist Israeli occupation and his critique of U.S. policy as biased toward Israel.
While teaching at the University of Chicago, Khalidi and his wife lived in the Hyde Park neighborhood near the Obamas. The families became friends and dinner companions.
In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors.
At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.
The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.
Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter.
In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel -- a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.
Khalidi added that he strongly disagrees with Obama's current views on Israel, and often disagreed with him during their talks over the years. But he added that Obama, because of his unusual background, with family ties to Kenya and Indonesia, would be more understanding of the Palestinian experience than typical American politicians.
"He has family literally all over the world," Khalidi said. "I feel a kindred spirit from that."
Ties with Israel
Even as he won support in Chicago's Palestinian community, Obama tried to forge ties with advocates for Israel.
In 2000, he submitted a policy paper to CityPAC, a pro-Israel political action committee, that among other things supported a unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital, a position far out of step from that of his Palestinian friends. The PAC concluded that Obama's position paper "suggests he is strongly pro-Israel on all of the major issues."
In 2002, as a rash of suicide bombings struck Israel, Obama sought out a Jewish colleague in the state Senate and asked whether he could sign onto a measure calling on Palestinian leaders to denounce violence. "He came to me and said, 'I want to have my name next to yours,' " said his former state Senate colleague Ira Silverstein, an observant Jew.
As a presidential candidate, Obama has won support from such prominent Chicago Jewish leaders as Penny Pritzker, a member of the family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain, and who is now his campaign finance chair, and from Lee Rosenberg, a board member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Nationally, Obama continues to face skepticism from some Jewish leaders who are wary of his long association with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who had made racially incendiary comments during several sermons that recently became widely known. Questions have persisted about Wright in part because of the recent revelation that his church bulletin reprinted a Times op-ed written by a leader of Hamas.
One Jewish leader said he viewed Obama's outreach to Palestinian activists, such as Said, in the light of his relationship to Wright.
"In the context of spending 20 years in a church where now it is clear the anti-Israel rhetoric was there, was repeated, . . . that's what makes his presence at an Arab American event with a Said a greater concern," said Abraham H. Foxman, national director for the Anti-Defamation League.
peter.wallsten@latimes.com I bolded a few things of note.
Most importantly, the article as it was written and referencing the video would normally be accompanied by the video. That has been iterated by several media outlets - least of which is The Politico. So now the question is why is the video not available?
The times says its to protect their source. Protect the source from what? If the going away party was non-inflammatory, non-eventful, then whats the harm in showing it? Why would the source need protecting?
At the very least it appears as if the story was written as pre-emptive appeasement piece. More of a "here's what happened at the meeting, you'll just have to take our word for it though". Its ok if you are satisfied with being spoon fed your information. Its not ok for me to be satisfied with that.
Especially from the media and how shamelessly they've acted during this campaign.
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 12:59 PM
So now the question is why is the video not available? The times says its to protect their source.
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
"We made a deal" is very different than "We have to protect our source."
If the going away party was non-inflammatory, non-eventful, then whats the harm in showing it?
The harm is that the Times made a deal with their source. If they suddenly start breaking said deals, they'll lose their sources.
At the very least it appears as if the story was written as pre-emptive appeasement piece.
Pre-emptive to what? It provided just as much, if not more, information than would have been available had there been no video.
More of a "here's what happened at the meeting, you'll just have to take our word for it though". Its ok if you are satisfied with being spoon fed your information. Its not ok for me to be satisfied with that.
Not getting up in arms when a right-wing website questions the LA Times is hardly being satisfied with being spoon-fed. It's being reasonable.
Warriorbird
10-29-2008, 01:06 PM
I like how Gan is going on and on about this when McCain's given Khalidi money himself.
Parkbandit
10-29-2008, 01:28 PM
It further proves the point that once someone picks a side in American politics it becomes some sort of intrinsic competition and they need to constantly validate their decision by pointing out genuinely stupid shit.
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=35649
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=37179
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=36991
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=37146
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=37053
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=37021
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=36928
Here, you might need this to clean those dirty windows in your glass house:
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/31/us/windex_span.jpg
I like how Gan is going on and on about this when McCain's given Khalidi money himself.
Actually, I'm still digging that up.
It appears that McCain was on the board of the comittee; however, the comittee or whatever it was also had an acting executive arm (president, vp, etc.) that appears to have been responsible for the making of those decisions.
I'd also like to see someone else besides the huffington post pick up the story to see what resources they put into it.
So, patience grasshopper.
Mabus
10-29-2008, 01:39 PM
Mabus/crb level
...
It further proves the point that once someone picks a side in American politics it becomes some sort of intrinsic competition and they need to constantly validate their decision by pointing out genuinely stupid shit.
I try not to point to your posts, but sometimes even I have to point to the "stupid shit".
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 01:46 PM
I'd also like to see someone else besides the huffington post pick up the story to see what resources they put into it.
So you're saying it's not in the best interest of the campaign to respond to what is likely a non-issue, especially when said issue is being brought up by opposition?
Huh. Interesting.
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 01:51 PM
In a nutshell ... the right wants to shine the "nefarious" Rashid Khalidi. In doing so they hope that some of that light reflects on Obama.
1. Do any of you tards know anything about Rashid Khalidi?
2. Do you honestly think Obama is going to take an anti-Israel stance in his administration?
3. Do you honestly think Khalidi is anti-Israel?
This thing is such a non-story.
Mabus
10-29-2008, 02:00 PM
2. Do you honestly think Obama is going to take an
Tell me, who is one of Obama's main foreign policy advisers? Can you name most of the team? I can.
Look into it yourself.
Then we can talk about how an Obama administration may view Israel-USA relations.
Unless you would rather skip that and start name-calling right off the bat.
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 02:15 PM
Sparky .... your helmet is on too tight. There isn't any more of a conspiracy here than the number of zionist jews that load up the McCain campaign or either of the Bush campaigns ... or administration
Someone can be critical of Israel without being an anti-semite or even anti-Israel.
Still ... this entire line of bullshit seems to be based on the ignorance/spin the GOP wants to throw in Khalidi's direction in the hopes that it will make the association nefarious. It's more of the same "fear" bullshit that's been tossed around since Wright, and then Ayers.
It's bullshit. Though I take it as a point of victory that no one has bothered to respond about Timmons.
Keller
10-29-2008, 02:22 PM
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=35649
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=37179
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=36991
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=37146
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=37053
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=37021
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=36928
Here, you might need this to clean those dirty windows in your glass house:
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/31/us/windex_span.jpg
Hyperlink1: Palin Hail Mary -- She's the reason I came down off of the fence. This might be the only link you provided in which I posted something to validate the candidate I supported.
Hyperlink2: Nuevo CA -- I just spent 4 years in CA. That's how people feel there. That's how I feel. I'm tired of rednecks fucking up my country. You can have your tax-free/no social programs in your own country. That's fine, gtfo.
Hyperlink3: Who is Colin Powell? -- That's legitimate news. No one had posted a thread about it yet.
Hyperlink4: Lawyer's Poised to Rule the World -- It's highly likely that Obama will win the election; I provided a list of the prominent attorney's that might be in positions of power. I think you got lazy and just started posted any thread I created and hoped it proved your point. It didn't.
Hyperlink5: Crazy Tracey -- That was highly entertaining. That proved nothing except there are scary people out there.
Hyperlink6: War & Taxes -- Did Obama or McCain's name even appear in the OP?
Again, diligence is your friend. Don't just post every thread down the list.
Keller
10-29-2008, 02:23 PM
sometimes even I have to point to the "stupid shit".
Good.
You admit that you post stupid shit.
Thank you.
Maybe I was wrong about you lacking integrity.
Yes, I think that possibility exists. Especially since the LA Times is on record as endorsing Obama.
Before I answer your next question, lets look at the story as it was printed in April of this year.
I bolded a few things of note.
Most importantly, the article as it was written and referencing the video would normally be accompanied by the video. That has been iterated by several media outlets - least of which is The Politico. So now the question is why is the video not available?
The times says its to protect their source. Protect the source from what? If the going away party was non-inflammatory, non-eventful, then whats the harm in showing it? Why would the source need protecting?
Are you planning to buy any less copies of LA Times publications than you currently do now? It may be hedging their bets but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to alienate potential sources to appease the McCain campaign especially if they've already thrown their weight into the Obama corner. News media is a business.
The times says its to protect their source. Protect the source from what? If the going away party was non-inflammatory, non-eventful, then whats the harm in showing it? Why would the source need protecting?
I repeat the question.
I repeat the question.
I don't think it's protection so much as keeping your word to your sources. If you're a source would you rather do business with a company that stays true to their word or renegs on their agreements?
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 03:00 PM
You ignore the answer.
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 03:01 PM
Because they have seen how good people are villainized for political gain.
Again, if the meeting is innocent. Why ask for protection? Why affect terms in the contract to keep the source private?
Again, if the meeting is innocent. Why ask for protection? Why affect terms in the contract to keep the source private?
That's upto the source isn't it?
Warriorbird
10-29-2008, 03:05 PM
McCain was the President of the organization.
That's upto the source isn't it?
LOL
Great skirt.
Its obvious that because of your support for Obama, you're satisfied with not asking further questions. Not investigating any deeper than you feel necessary (or that the LA Times feels necessary).
In as much as its obvious that because I"m a McCain supporter I am not satisfied with everything looking pretty on the surface.
McCain was the President of the organization.
Incorrect.
Please pay attention to what you post, or what you're involved in discussion wise. Eh?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll102/learningtewfly/officers.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll102/learningtewfly/board.jpg
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/IRIForm9901998.pdf
LOL
Great skirt.
Its obvious that because of your support for Obama, you're satisfied with not asking further questions. Not investigating any deeper than you feel necessary (or that the LA Times feels necessary).
In as much as its obvious that because I"m a McCain supporter I am not satisfied with everything looking pretty on the surface.
I'm also not trying to push the Obama campaign to make asinine requests of the McCain campaign for his benefit. Taking the LA Times at it's word even if the Obama campaign decided to pay this any attention and said give them the video they wouldn't/couldn't.
Yes, because we all know the Obama campaign is going to listen to me.
I'm glad you dont feel it would benefit the Obama campaign to push for greater transparency with this article/issue.
I however feel differently. :)
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 03:19 PM
Again, if the meeting is innocent. Why ask for protection? Why affect terms in the contract to keep the source private?
Again :
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
We have no idea of the reason behind the source's request, but to attribute it to something nefarious on Obama's part is at best a stretch not worty of response by his campaign.
I'm glad you dont feel it would benefit the Obama campaign to push for greater transparency with this article/issue.
I however feel differently.
Bullshit.
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 03:19 PM
Yes, because we all know the Obama campaign is going to listen to me.
I'm glad you dont feel it would benefit the Obama campaign to push for greater transparency with this article/issue.
I however feel differently. :)
Pretty hypocritical of you to suggest considering I haven't seen you pick up the "McCain" transparency torch.
That you've taken this argument to such lengths leads me to believe you know jack about Khalidi and just chose to run with a bullshit non-issue.
We have no idea of the reason behind the source's request, but to attribute it to something nefarious on Obama's part is at best a stretch not worty of response by his campaign.
So the thought does not occur to you to ask why. I understand. It might result in an answer that you really wont like.
:lol:
Bullshit.
Care to elaborate on what you feel is bullshit?
If its that you think I feel differently than what I just posted; I would like for you to explain how you know what I"m really thinking?
Yes, because we all know the Obama campaign is going to listen to me.
I'm glad you dont feel it would benefit the Obama campaign to push for greater transparency with this article/issue.
I however feel differently. :)
I don't feel that it would benefit the Obama campaign to appease the McCain campaign in so much as I don't feel that the McCain campaign should do anything to appease the Obama campaign at this point. It makes no sense to help the other candidate get elected.
Obama has already said what he had to say about Khalidi back in what? May? if you don't believe Obama coupled with disbelieving the LA Times account of an event that you need additional confirmation I doubt the Obama campaign was ever going to get your vote and honestly really shouldn't be bothered with trying at this point.
Warriorbird
10-29-2008, 03:27 PM
He wasn't the President... he was the Chairman. Gosh. You so got me.
I don't feel that it would benefit the Obama campaign to appease the McCain campaign in so much as I don't feel that the McCain campaign should do anything to appease the Obama campaign at this point. It makes no sense to help the other candidate get elected.
Obama has already said what he had to say about Khalidi back in what? May? if you don't believe Obama coupled with disbelieving the LA Times account of an event that you need additional confirmation I doubt the Obama campaign was ever going to get your vote and honestly really shouldn't be bothered with trying at this point.
No transparency.
Check.
He wasn't the President... he was the Chairman. Gosh. You so got me.
Which goes back to what I posted earlier, dipshit.
Way to keep up with the conversation.
:facepalm:
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 03:32 PM
Timmons anyone?
Better yet ... how about you actually read up on Khalidi.
Warriorbird
10-29-2008, 03:32 PM
Must make issue out of nothing! Must!
This is totally catching on with non News Corp affiliates.
Oleg Deripaska, Tsa'ah.
No transparency.
Check.
Life must be difficult for you never being able to trust anyone.
Mabus
10-29-2008, 03:37 PM
shit I was wrong
Good for you!
;)
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 03:37 PM
Oleg Deripaska.
I'll not give in to your fear mongering.
Life must be difficult for you never being able to trust anyone.
Especially in politics, where the media is concerned.
:rofl:
Mabus
10-29-2008, 03:41 PM
zionist jews
Check into the writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley on Israeli/US relations, for a start.
If you can move past your usual BS.
Warriorbird
10-29-2008, 03:41 PM
I'll not give in to your fear mongering.
Nor I your character assassination! Timmons just lobbied for Saddam... he didn't front for the Russian mafia, get banned from entering America, or represent Russia buying a stake in a US candidate who is mysteriously avowedly anti Russia!
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 03:43 PM
We have no idea of the reason behind the source's request, but to attribute it to something nefarious on Obama's part is at best a stretch not worty of response by his campaign.
So the thought does not occur to you to ask why. I understand. It might result in an answer that you really wont like.
The thought doesn't occur to me to make it Obama's issue why the Times' source doesn't want the video released. The thought also doesn't occur to me to have the Obama campaign pressure the Times to ignore their deal with the source.
I'm glad you dont feel it would benefit the Obama campaign to push for greater transparency with this article/issue.
I however feel differently.
Bullshit.
If its that you think I feel differently than what I just posted; I would like for you to explain how you know what I"m really thinking?
From earlier in this thread:
Do you honestly and truly believe that if there was something sinister Obama did on said video, the Times would have ignored it in the article they wrote? If so, why did they bother to write the article at all?
Yes, I think that possibility exists. Especially since the LA Times is on record as endorsing Obama.
You think it'll help the Obama campaign, but you also think there's possibly something sinister in the video?
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 03:44 PM
P.S. Sorry for the quotey post, folks.
P.P.S. Gan, you really should be in politics. You've convinced me to waste all of this time on a non-issue thread, which likely did nothing more than raise the question in the heads of at least one or two undecided people on this board. Had everyone who disagrees with you ignored it entirely, it would have been nothing more than a thread that fell to the bottom of the first page, possibly gotten a few posts back and forth between you, PB, and mabus, and then been forgotten.
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 03:55 PM
Check into the writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley on Israeli/US relations, for a start.
If you can move past your usual BS.
Believe me, I've read ... what exactly is your point? Well other than not knowing jack about Khalidi.
Did you understand my post as being "anti-zionist" or "anti-jew"?
Outside of that ... your post was pretty irrelevant.
Mabus
10-29-2008, 03:57 PM
Believe me, my post was pretty irrelevant.
Agreed.
;)
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 03:58 PM
Well if you want to get into edited quotes ... we can go there.
You think it'll help the Obama campaign, but you also think there's possibly something sinister in the video?
Reading comprehension FTL.
I said it would benefit the Obama campaign to encourage the LA Times to release the video in order to stop feeding the fuel of the issue.
I question the reason as to why the source requested secrecy (anonymity) and the reason why the LA Times broke with customary precedence and did not release the video with the story when printed in April of 08.
I am not saying the video has something sinister or not. That would be foolish of me since I have not seen it. However, I would like the satisfaction of making that determination myself. Especially in light of how little credibility the media currently has with regards to neutrality in this political season.
Its really not difficult to understand my position.
P.S. Sorry for the quotey post, folks.
P.P.S. Gan, you really should be in politics. You've convinced me to waste all of this time on a non-issue thread, which likely did nothing more than raise the question in the heads of at least one or two undecided people on this board. Had everyone who disagrees with you ignored it entirely, it would have been nothing more than a thread that fell to the bottom of the first page, possibly gotten a few posts back and forth between you, PB, and mabus, and then been forgotten.
:)
I hope that you walk away from the experience with a little more understanding of people with whom differ in opinion.
Mabus
10-29-2008, 04:05 PM
Well if you want to get into edited quotes ... we can go there.
What's the point of trying to hold any sort of debate with you, Keller or Warriorbird? It's like talking to jello, but jello has a better response. You distract from the points and attack the poster. When all else fails 'duh does et too!" is used.
The video may show Obama sitting at a table with Ayers and Khalidi (both long time associates) while other make highly negative statements about Israel.
If Obama sat there without protesting the comments it is relevant to whether he should be elected.
Withholding this information from the public is not how a news organization in a free country should operate. At the very least a full transcript should be released immediately.
BigWorm
10-29-2008, 04:07 PM
Check into the writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley on Israeli/US relations, for a start.
If you can move past your usual BS.
Irony alert x ∞.
Did you ever read anything about Black Liberation Theology?
Mabus
10-29-2008, 04:10 PM
Irony alert x ∞.
Did you ever read anything about Black Liberation Theology?
More then you, I am pretty sure.
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 04:10 PM
I said it would benefit the Obama campaign to encourage the LA Times to release the video in order to stop feeding the fuel of the issue.
I question the reason as to why the source requested secrecy (anonymity) and the reason why the LA Times broke with customary precedence and did not release the video with the story when printed in April of 08.
You understand that it's the Times not releasing the video (not the Obama campaign), and that the reason is they had a deal with their source. Yet you feel that the Obama campaign should encourage the Times to break their deal with said source because it would somehow help the campaign?
However, I would like the satisfaction of making that determination myself. Especially in light of how little credibility the media currently has with regards to neutrality in this political season.
Your issue should be with the Times and its source, as they are the ones with a deal to not release the video.
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 04:10 PM
I find it hard to take anything you post as serious. Each post is filled with "political theory", conspiracy, lack of facts, twisting of facts ... so on and so forth.
You're ignoring the facts presented, you're buying into (and as such ... enabling a campaign based on smears, lies, and deceit). You, nor gan, have posted a damn thing about Khalidi. Yet you're running around frothing at the mouth because a media outlet is honoring it's word to the source.
Your attempts, and Gan's, have crossed the boundaries of pathetic.
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 04:11 PM
I hope that you walk away from the experience with a little more understanding of people with whom differ in opinion.
I have plenty of respect and experience with people who differ in opinion. The motives, methodology, and logic of people (whether their opinions are the same or different) is what I often question.
You understand that it's the Times not releasing the video (not the Obama campaign), and that the reason is they had a deal with their source. Yet you feel that the Obama campaign should encourage the Times to break their deal with said source because it would somehow help the campaign?
Yes, and I've already explained my reasoning why I thought it would be a good idea why strategy wise. There's really nothing else to repeat here.
Your issue should be with the Times and its source, as they are the ones with a deal to not release the video.
My issue IS with the times and its source. That has been consistent throughout this conversation.
I have plenty of respect and experience with people who differ in opinion. The motives, methodology, and logic of people (whether their opinions are the same or different) is what I often question.
Me too!
Hence why I want the video released. http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/icons/icon3.gif
The only stupid question is the one not asked.
Keller
10-29-2008, 04:14 PM
What's the point of trying to hold any sort of debate with you, Keller or Warriorbird? It's like talking to jello, but jello has a better response. You distract from the points and attack the poster.
Oh no you didneh!
That's pretty funny to hear from you.
Wanna defend Palin because what she didn't wasn't illegal and then lie about what I had said again?
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 04:16 PM
My issue IS with the times and its source
Cool, then let's leave Obama out of this.
I find it hard to take anything you post as serious. Each post is filled with "political theory", conspiracy, lack of facts, twisting of facts ... so on and so forth.
You're ignoring the facts presented, you're buying into (and as such ... enabling a campaign based on smears, lies, and deceit). You, nor gan, have posted a damn thing about Khalidi. Yet you're running around frothing at the mouth because a media outlet is honoring it's word to the source.
Your attempts, and Gan's, have crossed the boundaries of pathetic.
The only reason why its upsetting to you is because the issue is not Khalidi specifically but what went on at the event. You wish to keep diverting back to Khalidi and yet he's just an accessory to the event in question.
Why did the source wish the video to remain withheld? What went on at that meeting that motivated the source to remain anonomyous? Why, why, why?
If you want to remain in left field thats OK. Just dont get pissed when the play is nowhere near where you're wanting it to be.
Crazy Bard
10-29-2008, 04:17 PM
Me too!
Hence why I want the video released. http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/icons/icon3.gif
The only stupid question is the one not asked.
:rofl: .. Your full of shit
Cool, then let's leave Obama out of this.
Since he was present at the meeting, that will difficult. I understand he's your candidate and all; however, he's still an accessory to this as well until the questions are answered.
:rofl: .. Your full of shit
Outstanding contribution from an Obama 08 supporter.
:clap:
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 04:21 PM
Since he was present at the meeting, that will difficult. I understand he's your candidate and all; however, he's still an accessory to this as well until the questions are answered.
Video = not his
Decision to release or not release video = not his
Were he begging the Times to not release this video, I'd buy into the argument that he should be included in the discussion.
Besides, do you honestly want the guy who could be the next President of the United States using his clout to get newspapers to reveal their anonymous sources and documents? You're scared of communists, that thought should really scare you.
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 04:23 PM
The only reason why its upsetting to you is because the issue is not Khalidi specifically but what went on at the event. You wish to keep diverting back to Khalidi and yet he's just an accessory to the event in question.
Why did the source wish the video to remain withheld? What went on at that meeting that motivated the source to remain anonomyous? Why, why, why?
If you want to remain in left field thats OK. Just dont get pissed when the play is nowhere near where you're wanting it to be.
This failed the "bullshit" litmus test.
This is an attempt to call a relationship into question by painting Khalidi as some anti-semite who wants Israel destroyed. You, and tard boy, duck the issue because it would do nothing but expose your argument for what it is ... bullshit. You just want another opportunity to drag some names through the mud and have some slack jaws, who can't find their own facts, buy into it.
Mabus
10-29-2008, 04:27 PM
You just want another opportunity to drag some names through the mud and have some slack jaws, who can't find their own facts, buy into it.
Says the guy with the fake quote in his signature...
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 04:31 PM
You like?
That should teach you not to be so public about your sex life with farm animals.
Video = not his
Decision to release or not release video = not his
Were he begging the Times to not release this video, I'd buy into the argument that he should be included in the discussion.
Until the video is released and reviewed, Obama's link is merely by association. By this reasoning I can understand why Obama supporters say its a non-issue. However, the question of what went on in that meeting, what Obama or anyone else did in that meeting, that will nag at those who want to know why its being withheld.
Besides, do you honestly want the guy who could be the next President of the United States using his clout to get newspapers to reveal their anonymous sources and documents? You're scared of communists, that thought should really scare you.
The media gets manipulated all the time in politics. In as much as they manipulate politics themselves. Having a campaign spokesperson come out and say that there's nothing incriminating in the video and that its ok with them if the video is released could only be a good thing... IMO
Crazy Bard
10-29-2008, 04:36 PM
Outstanding contribution from an Obama 08 supporter.
:clap:
Because I pay attention to the actual issues we're going through right now, and could care less about someones affiliations. McCain is loosing on the issues, though so it doesn't surprise me that your creating these retarded threads.
You want Obama's campaign to demand L. A Times release a video when you know it's not in their best interest. I glad, however that they know how to run an effective campaign rather than the disaster over on McCains side.
..Why aren't you creating a thread about all the shady people McCain's had ties too? You'd be surprised how many.
This failed the "bullshit" litmus test.
This is an attempt to call a relationship into question by painting Khalidi as some anti-semite who wants Israel destroyed. You, and tard boy, duck the issue because it would do nothing but expose your argument for what it is ... bullshit. You just want another opportunity to drag some names through the mud and have some slack jaws, who can't find their own facts, buy into it.
Colorful input.
Unfortunately for you its not very moving or convincing as to whether or not the questions should or should not be answered.
Thanks though.
Parkbandit
10-29-2008, 04:38 PM
You like?
That should teach you not to be so public about your sex life with farm animals.
When you are as intellectually bankrupt as you are (much like your credit cards that can't get approved to donate to a site that accepts donations from anyone), I guess the only recourse you have is to just make shit up to suit your purpose.
Mabus
10-29-2008, 04:38 PM
You like?
That should teach you not to be so public about your sex life with farm animals.
So you are stating that is an actual quote, eh?
Then where is the link back to the post?
I do appreciate the fact that sice you an not match me intellectually you need to attempt to maintain some sense self esteem by creating such filth. I am flattered, really.
Here, a hug just for you!
:hug2:
Parkbandit
10-29-2008, 04:39 PM
..Why aren't you creating a thread about all the shady people McCain's had ties too? You'd be surprised how many.
Why? Do they need to be posted more than once for you to read them?
Keller
10-29-2008, 04:40 PM
I do appreciate the fact that sice you an not match me intellectually
ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT!?!
:love:
Jorddyn
10-29-2008, 04:41 PM
However, the question of what went on in that meeting, what Obama or anyone else did in that meeting, that will nag at those who want to know why its being withheld.
So long as those who are feeling nagged are not implicating that Obama is doing something wrong by not releasing a video that's not his to release.
Having a campaign spokesperson come out and say that there's nothing incriminating in the video and that its ok with them if the video is released could only be a good thing... IMO
Now THAT I might agree with. But for them to encourage or "demand" its release? Nah.
Why? Do they need to be posted more than once for you to read them?
Thought you knew. The Internet Fairness Doctrine dictates that all posters must give equal time to all candidates of discussion.
Not that the responsibility and ability of posting articles involving the other candidate is limited to only a few select people here on the PC or anything.
...
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 04:44 PM
So you are stating that is an actual quote, eh?
Then where is the link back to the post?
I do appreciate the fact that sice you an not match me intellectually you need to attempt to maintain some sense self esteem by creating such filth. I am flattered, really.
Here, a hug just for you!
:hug2:
You certainly have a very high, yet very unfounded, opinion of yourself.
Don't worry, I'm not at all worried about being your intellectual match ... being a dumbass never appealed to me.
Mabus
10-29-2008, 04:44 PM
ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT!?!
:love:
So sprechen Sie Amerikaner?
So long as those who are feeling nagged are not implicating that Obama is doing something wrong by not releasing a video that's not his to release.
That would be a wrong intention. And definitely not an intention of mine. Unless it can be proven later that Obama or his campaign were complicit in hindering its release due to the contents of said video being incriminatory. Then its a different can of worms entirely.
Now THAT I might agree with. But for them to encourage or "demand" its release? Nah.
I dont believe I ever said they should demand. I could be wrong as I've made a few posts since the initial idea. If that were the case then I misspoke and should have said encouraged or suggested. Since the Obama campaign has no lawful authority over the LA Times.
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 04:49 PM
When you are as intellectually bankrupt as you are (much like your credit cards that can't get approved to donate to a site that accepts donations from anyone), I guess the only recourse you have is to just make shit up to suit your purpose.
LOL .... I think you missed class the day "irony" was to be the subject matter.
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j7/tijay2k/motivator9803031.jpg
Keller
10-29-2008, 04:49 PM
So sprechen Sie Amerikaner?
This is like deja vu.
It reminds me of that time someone on the PC tried to insult another poster's intelligence but couldn't even craft a comprehensible English phrase.
No. Wait. This IS that time.
LOL .... I think you missed class the day "irony" was to be the subject matter.
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j7/tijay2k/motivator9803031.jpg
:rofl:
Look who broke out the .jpeg's first.
The irony is beautiful.
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 04:52 PM
Glad it didn't sail over your head.
Glad it didn't sail over your head.
For that, your posts would have to sail first.
Tsa`ah
10-29-2008, 04:54 PM
OMG ... are you breaking out the insults?!
Has all else failed for you? Yes ... yes all started failing for you some time ago.
OMG ... are you breaking out the insults?!
Has all else failed for you? Yes ... yes all started failing for you some time ago.
:rofl:
Funny. Failed but funny.
Mabus
10-29-2008, 07:18 PM
This is like deja vu.
It reminds me of that time someone on the PC tried to insult another poster's intelligence but couldn't even craft a comprehensible English phrase.
No. Wait. This IS that time.
Got to Germany, tell them you speak "English". See what they ask you.
I know it was a bit high-brow for your body-parts humor taste, but it was not a slight at you.
I respond when attacked. You, Feces and a few others attack all the time when you have no valid argument.
But you already know this, as do many people on this forum.
Keller
10-29-2008, 07:34 PM
Got to Germany, tell them you speak "English". See what they ask you.
I know it was a bit high-brow for your body-parts humor taste, but it was not a slight at you.
I respond when attacked. You, Feces and a few others attack all the time when you have no valid argument.
But you already know this, as do many people on this forum.
Far be it from me to not laugh at a dick or fart joke.
But seriously -- the next time you want to be critical of anyone's intelligence, please do it in a comprehensible English phrase.
Tsa`ah
10-30-2008, 12:07 AM
Far be it from me to not laugh at a dick or fart joke.
But seriously -- the next time you want to be critical of anyone's intelligence, please do it in a comprehensible English phrase.
You set the bar far too high ... far too high.
Mabus
10-30-2008, 10:26 AM
But seriously -- the next time you want to be critical of anyone's intelligence, please do it in a comprehensible English phrase.
If I want advice from someone that starts fictitious threads about gay sex to aid their forum buddy I will ask you.
Other then that you and Tsa`ah can give each other advice on "integrity" and "intelligence".
Keller
10-30-2008, 10:29 AM
If I want advice from someone that starts fictitious threads about gay sex to aid their forum buddy I will ask you.
Other then that you and Tsa`ah can give each other advice on "integrity" and "intelligence".
Prove to me that it was fictitious.
Mabus
10-30-2008, 10:34 AM
Prove to me that it was fictitious.
That was quite the intellectual post, full of integrity and challenging issues.
Care to expound on your concept of accusing someone you do not know of having gay sex as a slight, or perhaps Tsa`ah's concept of accusing someone of bestiality and incest, as they relate to factual discussion of the issues surrounding a political campaign?
I await the two-headed response.
Keller
10-30-2008, 10:40 AM
That was quite the intellectual post, full of integrity and challenging issues.
Care to expound on your concept of accusing someone you do not know of having gay sex as a slight, or perhaps Tsa`ah's concept of accusing someone of bestiality and incest, as they relate to factual discussion of the issues surrounding a political campaign?
I await the two-headed response.
Again, proving you lack even a gram of integrity.
Why did I make that thread?
It was a playful response to your accusations against another. Maybe you should remove your foot from your mouth before you post things like:
Care to expound on your concept of accusing someone you do not know of having gay sex as a slight
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.