PDA

View Full Version : Elections uh-oh, Obamessiah sounds....er, bitter. He will forget hope and fight.


memyselfI
04-17-2008, 03:01 PM
Poor bitter :deevee: Obamessiah. He's been showing 'restraint' against his Democratic candidate but the CONS had better watch out. He will throw away his rants about the politics of destruction and his promise of hope. He'll fight.

ROFL

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-campaign18apr18,1,494715.story

WASHINGTON -- Democrat Barack Obama said today that last night's contentious debate, where he was peppered with questions about his words and associations, was a preview of Republican tactics against him in the fall election.

"That was the rollout of the Republican campaign in November," he said at a town hall meeting in Raleigh, N.C. "They will try to focus on these issues that don't have anything to do with how you're paying your bills at the end of the month." Saying that he has shown "some restraint" in running against a rival Democrat, the Illinois senator said, "If the Republicans come at me, I will come right back at them.... I won't have as much restraint with the Republicans."

Obama expressed annoyance at the debate -- "It was 45 minutes until we started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people," he said -- and said he just had to "let it kind of ..." as he brushed off his suit shoulder.

At the town hall meeting, Obama said that rival, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "looked in her element, taking every opportunity to get a dig in there." Calling her campaign "a textbook Washington game," Obama said, "That's her right, to kind of twist the knife in a little bit."

irishjayhawk
04-17-2008, 03:05 PM
I was unaware that Obama ever took the stance that when attacked you don't attack back.

vailpass
04-17-2008, 03:08 PM
He won't have as much restraint with the Republicans? LMAO
How scary.
That's good Mr. Hussein Obama because if you get the Dem nomination you better roll up your sleeves.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 03:08 PM
I was unaware that Obama ever took the stance that when attacked you don't attack back.

But he's 'different' and positive and hopeful and acts above it all. So now he's going to be down and dirty because it's politically expedient to do so????

Gee, that sounds like a typical politician to me.

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 03:15 PM
You really are f*cking dense.

He needs his party to be behind him to win, something that Hillary doesn't seem to comprehend. Alienating voters he'll need in the Fall is about the most retarded thing he can do. That's why he took the high road on Hillary and Bosnia.

He'll have no problem going after McCain because they'll actually be debating issues, unlike last night's garbage.

Donger
04-17-2008, 03:17 PM
What a pussy.

irishjayhawk
04-17-2008, 03:18 PM
But he's 'different' and positive and hopeful and acts above it all. So now he's going to be down and dirty because it's politically expedient to do so????

Gee, that sounds like a typical politician to me.

ROFL.

Right. It's only politicians that fight back when attacked.

You've hit a new low.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 03:21 PM
You really are f*cking dense.

He needs his party to be behind him to win, something that Hillary doesn't seem to comprehend that. Alienating voters he'll need in the Fall is about the most retarded thing he can do. That's why he took the high road on Hillary and Bosnia.

He'll have no problem going after McCain because they'll actually be debating issues.

He was stunned. He looked completely over matched and out of his element without his padded answers and teleprompter. He wasn't being valiant he was being shell shocked.

Yeah, and he'll look real convincing arguing issues like his patriotism against a war veteran.

The worst part for Obama and the DEMS is that he's shown the CONS exactly what to do to make the guy look weak, wilting, and like a wuss. The debate last night will show exactly how to make Obama come off his game and roll in the mud with the CONS. He'll be overmatched and will be crushed in the GA.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 03:22 PM
ROFL.

Right. It's only politicians that fight back when attacked.

You've hit a new low.

But what happened to his pledge to be a new type of politician and to run a different kind of campaign?

He's a fake. He's defrauded a bunch of people and he'll be further exposed the more time goes on. That is EXACTLY why his supporters have been so hysterical in their calls for Clinton to drop out. Time is not on his side because familiarity will breed contempt.

irishjayhawk
04-17-2008, 03:23 PM
He was stunned. He looked completely over matched and out of his element without his padded answers and teleprompter. He wasn't being valiant he was being shell shocked.

Yeah, and he'll look real convincing arguing his patriotism against a war veteran.

The worst part for Obama and the DEMS is that he's shown the CONS exactly what to do to make the guy look weak, wilting, and like a wuss.

ROFL

Quit while you're behind. Of course, you seem to be agreeing with The View, which has a track record with intelligence....or lack there of.

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 03:24 PM
memeinkampfI still has a sandy vag over the fact that pussy Edwards and his $400 haircuts were no match for Barry O'Bombs.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 03:30 PM
ROFL

Quit while you're behind. Of course, you seem to be agreeing with The View, which has a track record with intelligence....or lack there of.

No, the View would be agreeing with me. I've been trying to expose the Fraud for months.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 03:31 PM
memeinkampfI still has a sandy vag over the fact that pussy Edwards and his $400 haircuts were no match for Barry O'Bombs.

Ah, tried and true Obamabot ploy. When they can't defend their Messiah they attack the opposition.

keg in kc
04-17-2008, 03:32 PM
Oh, how dare he.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 03:36 PM
memeinkampfI still has a sandy vag over the fact that pussy Edwards and his $400 haircuts were no match for Barry O'Bombs.

LMAO

I think we have a new nickname for that vile, rancid, festering wedge of butt cheese, but it may be a violation of Godwin's Law. Can we get a ruling from the Internet Referees on this?

HolmeZz
04-17-2008, 03:38 PM
No, the View would be agreeing with me. I've been trying to expose the Fraud for months.

You didn't start attacking Obama until he began winning. You weren't ahead of the curve, you were carrying out your duties as Chiefplanet's Contrarian Whore(CCW). Obama's success was probably a personal affront to you seeing as the reason you wouldn't back him from the beginning was because you thought he couldn't win. Now that he's shown he can, you're having trouble coming to grips with being wrong.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 03:39 PM
In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?

Barack Obama


ROFL

keg in kc
04-17-2008, 03:39 PM
Chiefplanet's Contrarian Whore(CCW).Hey, good one.

Donger
04-17-2008, 03:41 PM
I can't wait for the convention.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 03:41 PM
You didn't start attacking Obama until he began winning. You weren't ahead of the curve, you were carrying out your duties as Chiefplanet's Contrarian Whore(CCW). Obama's success was probably a personal affront to you seeing as the reason you wouldn't back him from the beginning was because you thought he couldn't win. Now that he's shown he can, you're having trouble coming to grips with being wrong.

I didn't think Dems would be stupid enough to buy into his fake ass. I was wrong.

They are stupid enough.

Donger
04-17-2008, 03:42 PM
I didn't think Dems would be stupid enough to buy into his fake ass. I was wrong.

They are stupid enough.

Considering butterfly ballots confuse them, I would have thought that was obvious.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 03:43 PM
Considering butterfly ballots confuse them, I would have thought that was obvious.

Well, I thought that might just be limited to Southern Floridian Dems. I was wrong about that as well...:doh!:

They are all about winning and don't care about how they do it. They will be sorry.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 03:50 PM
I actually think he did himself some good last night not attacking Hillary. From what I am hearing today everybody is pissed at Hillary for being so negative. Plus his poll numbers are coming up as well.

alpha_omega
04-17-2008, 03:51 PM
Obamessiah

I am not a regular contributor to DC, so many of you have probably seen this before....but i find this extremely funny!!!!!!!

Taco John
04-17-2008, 04:03 PM
But he's 'different' and positive and hopeful and acts above it all. So now he's going to be down and dirty because it's politically expedient to do so????

Gee, that sounds like a typical politician to me.


The only thing that you add to this forum is hate. You are a vortex of hate. You wear it like a coat. You crave every ounce of hate you can wring out of this forum. And boy do you get it. But no matter how much hate you swallow up, it never seems to be enough to quench your thirst for it.

I pity you for the black hole that you have in your heart that requires you to hunger for a neverending supply of hate.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 04:13 PM
The only thing that you add to this forum is hate. You are a vortex of hate. You wear it like a coat. You crave every ounce of hate you can wring out of this forum. And boy do you get it. But no matter how much hate you swallow up, it never seems to be enough to quench your thirst for it.

I pity you for the black hole that you have in your heart that requires you to hunger for a neverending supply of hate.

I agree TJ. Lately I have found a new level of respect for people on the right on this board who had to put up with the vile shit that comes out of her mouth. I also will take some responsibility for not sticking up for them or for ignoring what she says and how she acts toward them.

I have also defended Denise from being banned from this place but if a vote were to come up again I think I would have to reconsider.

I just want to apologize to all the conservatives on this board who have been subjected to this vile POS and I apologize for being part of a community that has kept her around.

Donger
04-17-2008, 04:16 PM
I just want to apologize to all the conservatives on this board who have been subjected to this vile POS and I apologize for being part of a community that has kept her around.

Other than when mememe interjected politics during Katrina, I've never really had much of a problem with her.

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2008, 04:16 PM
You really are f*cking dense.

He needs his party to be behind him to win, something that Hillary doesn't seem to comprehend. Alienating voters he'll need in the Fall is about the most retarded thing he can do. That's why he took the high road on Hillary and Bosnia.

He'll have no problem going after McCain because they'll actually be debating issues, unlike last night's garbage.

I thought that Sen. Clinton was very clear yesterday when she pledged to support Sen. Obama if he becomes the nominee.

StcChief
04-17-2008, 04:16 PM
just keep fighting the good fight all the way thru the Dem convention.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 04:21 PM
Other than when mememe interjected politics during Katrina, I've never really had much of a problem with her.

People have pointed me to some threads especially the one about Todd Beamer's wife that were pretty tasteless.

Donger
04-17-2008, 04:21 PM
The only thing that you add to this forum is hate. You are a vortex of hate. You wear it like a coat. You crave every ounce of hate you can wring out of this forum. And boy do you get it. But no matter how much hate you swallow up, it never seems to be enough to quench your thirst for it.

I pity you for the black hole that you have in your heart that requires you to hunger for a neverending supply of hate.

Is she incorrect? Did Barack Hussein not say, "In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?"

Taco John
04-17-2008, 04:23 PM
Is she incorrect? Did Barack Hussein not say, "In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?"


I don't know. I don't care.

I'm not voting for the guy.

I was just making a correct observation.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 04:26 PM
Is she incorrect? Did Barack Hussein not say, "In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?"

He definitely said that but at the same time he is not going to stand by and let people spread out right lies\slander about him. Would you?

John Kerry for weeks said or did nothing about the swift boat attacks when he should have stood up and defended himself

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 04:27 PM
I don't know. I don't care.

I'm not voting for the guy.

I was just making a correct observation.

Oh, that's rich.

She might be correct but damn her to hell anyway. ROFL

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2008, 04:28 PM
...he should have stood up and defended himself

The whole point of the swift boat thing is that he's never stood up to defend anything.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 04:29 PM
He definitely said that but at the same time he is not going to stand by and let people spread out right lies\slander about him. Would you?

John Kerry for weeks said or did nothing about the swift boat attacks when he should have stood up and defended himself

Where this is where Baaarack has dug himself into a nice hole and put himself into a nice box. By hyping up how much he's going to change things and how he's not 'one of those' kinds of politicians when he's had every intention of getting in the gutter when the time is right.

So he's either lied about his intentions and his entire campaign is a fraud (my belief) or he'll stay on the high road and not engage in the gutter attacks and cynical politics and keep his integrity. He may lose in the process if need be in order to prove he is what he's claimed he is.

My bet is he wants to win just like any other politican and will do and say anything necessary to make it happen but in doing so he'll sell his soul to the devil. Of course HIS followers won't 'get it' and still maintain he's not doing it but he will.

It will be soooooo fun to watch. Pass the popcorn.

Taco John
04-17-2008, 04:30 PM
Oh, that's rich.

She might be correct but damn her to hell anyway. ROFL

The point is, I don't care if you're correct. And neither do you. You're just in it for the hate. You've never posted anything from an even keel. Everything you ever post on this forum is to illicit hate. You crave it.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 04:34 PM
The point is, I don't care if you're correct. And neither do you. You're just in it for the hate. You've never posted anything from an even keel. Everything you ever post on this forum is to illicit hate. You crave it.

Yes, I care about being correct. What I hate is to be wrong and I hate to lose. That is why I protest like hell when I see a losing proposition like the one I'm seeing.

Trainwreck waiting to happen.

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 04:36 PM
The whole point of the swift boat thing is that he's never stood up to defend anything.

I agree and that is what Obama said he is going to do...defend himself.

Obama is not going to go out and start smearing John McCain or any Republican. He hasn't done it with Hillary even though he could pretty much destroy her with all her baggage.

Where this is where Baaarack has dug himself into a nice hole and put himself into a nice box. By hyping up how much he's going to change things and how he's not 'one of those' kinds of politicians when he's had every intention of getting in the gutter when the time is right.

So he's either lied about his intentions and his entire campaign is a fraud (my belief) or he'll stay on the high road and not engage in the gutter attacks and cynical politics and keep his integrity. He may lose in the process if need be in order to prove he is what he's claimed he is.

My bet is he wants to win just like any other politican and will do and say anything necessary to make it happen but in doing so he'll sell his soul to the devil. Of course HIS followers won't 'get it' and still maintain he's not doing it but he will.

It will be soooooo fun to watch. Pass the popcorn.

Denise it is about defending himself and his family against smear attacks. Why can't you figure that out? He is not going to go on the offensive and start smearing people like the Clintons do or the Republicans.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 04:38 PM
Denise it is about defending himself and his family against smear attacks. Why can't you figure that out? He is not going to go on the offensive and start smearing people like the Clintons do or the Republicans.

For now...

Taco John
04-17-2008, 04:39 PM
What I read:

I hate....I hate...

I'm a Trainwreck...

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 04:41 PM
What I read:

Thank you for admitting that you have a problem. A problem of reading only what you want to see and read. :clap:

dirk digler
04-17-2008, 04:41 PM
For now...

You have been saying that for months now and he still hasn't smeared Hillary at all. So you are wrong...AGAIN

irishjayhawk
04-17-2008, 04:43 PM
No, the View would be agreeing with me. I've been trying to expose the Fraud for months.

You obviously can't read. I said the View agreed with you. And then said that they've proved their great intellectual minds time and time again. NOT!

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 04:46 PM
You have been saying that for months now and he still hasn't smeared Hillary at all. So you are wrong...AGAIN

No, because he has his wife and campaign doing it. ROFL

He admitted as much last night. :doh!:

Logical
04-17-2008, 05:26 PM
LMAO

I think we have a new nickname for that vile, rancid, festering wedge of butt cheese, but it may be a violation of Godwin's Law. Can we get a ruling from the Internet Referees on this?
Nah I tend to associate meinkampf with pre Nazi Germany and is more a philosophy guide book. Also it was published in 1925 so I think you can run with it.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 05:29 PM
Nah I tend to associate meinkampf with pre Nazi Germany and is more a philosophy guide book. Also it was published in 1925 so I think you can run with it.

I would, but I think "CCW" has already won. It may be more accurate as well. LMAO

Logical
04-17-2008, 05:30 PM
DENise,

Do you honestly believe Hillary can beat McCain?

Do you admit Obama has been honest so far even if in your view he is not revealing some alleged shortcomings?

At this point what do you think the Democrats should do (forget the Gore option he has already ruled himself out)?

irishjayhawk
04-17-2008, 05:31 PM
No, because he has his wife and campaign doing it. ROFL

He admitted as much last night. :doh!:

Since you didn't address my post, I'll take it that you didn't read my post and therefore can't comment on the fact that you and the View agree. And that the View has represented facts like the "earth is flat" and things of this nature.

Jenson71
04-17-2008, 05:32 PM
DENise,

Do you honestly believe Hillary can beat McCain?

Do you admit Obama has been honest so far even if in your view he is not revealing some alleged shortcomings?

At this point what do you think the Democrats should do (forget the Gore option he has already ruled himself out)?

If she wants a Democratic White House, she will want no more in-house fighting. This is hurting the Democrats.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 05:42 PM
DENise,

Do you honestly believe Hillary can beat McCain?

Do you admit Obama has been honest so far even if in your view he is not revealing some alleged shortcomings?

At this point what do you think the Democrats should do (forget the Gore option he has already ruled himself out)?

I think Hillary could beat McCain just as I think Obamessiah could. I don't think either will.

No, I think Obamessiah has been extremely disingenuous on a number of things and I think he's a fraud.

I wish the Dems would appoint another candidate because I think BOTH Clinton and Baaarack suck. They should be clobbering McCain but Hillary is too hated and Obamessiah can't even close the deal with the Dems so it's FOOLISH to think he will be able to with a general electorate.

I think the Dems will lose this election and they probably, no they do, deserve to do so.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 05:43 PM
Since you didn't address my post, I'll take it that you didn't read my post and therefore can't comment on the fact that you and the View agree. And that the View has represented facts like the "earth is flat" and things of this nature.

I didn't comment because it was and remains a waste of my precious time.

irishjayhawk
04-17-2008, 05:44 PM
I didn't comment because it was and remains a waste of my precious time.

You seem to be spending a lot of precious time on a worthless topic....

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 05:46 PM
You seem to be spending a lot of precious time on a worthless topic....

Actually, I think this topic is very important. It's Obamessiah signaling to HIS followers that he's going to change course. He's sending out a fair warning that he will become one of 'them' but only as a means to defend himself and not because he's truly 'one of them.'

Prolly very reassuring to the believers. They can go on believing he's different even if he's ACTING the same. He's telegraphing marching orders and putting everyone on notice. Look for the whole 'defending' and martyr type of innuendo to start permeating his rhetoric. :spock:

irishjayhawk
04-17-2008, 05:50 PM
Actually, I think this topic is very important. It's Obamessiah signaling to HIS followers that he's going to change course. He's sending out a fair warning that he will become one of 'them' but only as a means to defend himself and not because he's truly 'one of them.'

Prolly very reassuring to the believers. They can go on believing he's different even if he's ACTING the same. He's telegraphing marching orders and putting everyone on notice. Look for the whole 'defending' and martyr type of innuendo to start permeating his rhetoric. :spock:

Right because hope = let your enemies smear, attack, spread disinformation about, spout of hate, etc about you while you do nothing.

If for nothing else, this logic is why you should stop posting.

Logical
04-17-2008, 05:51 PM
I think Hillary could beat McCain just as I think Obamessiah could. I don't think either will.

No, I think Obamessiah has been extremely disingenuous on a number of things and I think he's a fraud.

I wish the Dems would appoint another candidate because I think BOTH Clinton and Baaarack suck. They should be clobbering McCain but Hillary is too hated and Obamessiah can't even close the deal with the Dems so it's FOOLISH to think he will be able to with a general electorate.

I think the Dems will lose this election and they probably, no they do, deserve to do so.

While I don't agree with you on almost anything except that all the candidates suck. I wonder if you could provide a specific example of Obama not being honest. Something not based on your or my opinion but a fact like Hillary lying about landing under fire in Bosnia?

Taco John
04-17-2008, 05:51 PM
Thank you for admitting that you have a problem. A problem of reading only what you want to see and read. :clap:


Thank you for admitting that you have a problem. A problem of craving to be hated.

memyselfI
04-17-2008, 05:58 PM
While I don't agree with you on almost anything except that all the candidates suck. I wonder if you could provide a specific example of Obama not being honest. Something not based on your or my opinion but a fact like Hillary lying about landing under fire in Bosnia?

His lie about how his parents met in Selma and caused him to be born is a doozy. The lies he's told about his father are pretty well documented as well. The lie he told about the Life magazine article is pretty important too when you consider he claims that was his epiphany moment.

Here is a nice list to start. Look for each of these coming to a tv set near you in the not too distant future:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/04/rnc_to_blast_ob.html

#10: Obama Was A Constitutional Law Professor:

At A Recent Fundraiser, Obama Claimed He Was A “Constitutional Law Professor.” “‘I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution,’ Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser.” (Brendan Farrington, “Obama: Bush Fails To Respect The Constitution,” The Associated Press, 3/30/07)

On The University Of Chicago Law School Website, Obama Is Listed As A “Senior Lecturer In Law (On Leave Of Absence).” (University Of Chicago Law School Website, http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama, Accessed 3/30/07)

Obama Made This False Claim In His 2004 Senate Race. “Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.” (Lynn Sweet, “Obama's Book: What's Real, What's Not” Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04)

#9: Obama’s Parents “Got Together” Because Of The 1965 Selma March:

In His Selma Speech, Obama Said His Parents “Got Together” And He Was Born As A Result Of The Selma March. Obama: “Because some folks were willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama, Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At Brown Chapel AME Church, Selma, AL, 3/4/07)

“Earlier In The Day At A Prayer Breakfast, The Illinois Democrat Said: ‘If It Hadn't Been For Selma, I Wouldn’t Be Here.’” (Anne E. Kornblut and Peter Whoriskey, “Clinton, Obama Link Selma March To Present,” The Washington Post, 3/5/07)

But Obama Was Born In 1961, 4 YEARS BEFORE The 1965 Selma March. “Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961.” (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 3/6/07; Anne E. Kornblut and Peter Whoriskey, “Clinton, Obama Link Selma March To Present,” The Washington Post, 3/5/07)

#8: Obama Was Fluent In Indonesian As A Child:

Obama’s Claim That He Quickly Became Fluent In Indonesian As A Child Was Disputed By A Former Teacher. “Obama has claimed on numerous occasions to have become fluent in Indonesian in six months. Yet those who knew him disputed that during recent interviews. Israella Pareira Darmawan, Obama's 1st-grade teacher, said she attempted to help him learn the Indonesian language by going over pronunciation and vowel sounds. He struggled greatly with the foreign language, she said, and with his studies as a result.” (Kirsten Scharnberg and Kim Barker, “The Not-So-Simple Story Of Barack Obama's Youth,” Chicago Tribune, 3/25/07)

#7: Obama Mistakenly Received A Letter From A Company In Which He Owned Stock:

“Obama Said At Some Point In Fall 2005 He Got A Stockholder Letter. He Said He Believes It Was From AVI Or Skyterra, But He Couldn't Remember Which Company.” (Nedra Pickler, “Obama Unaware Of Investment Conflicts,” The Associated Press, 3/7/07)

According To SEC Records, SkyTerra Did Not Send Investors Its SEC Proxy Forms In Fall 2005. “The origin of the shareholder update Obama referred to remains unclear. SkyTerra, like many public companies, sends investors copies of its Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proxy forms, also known as 14As, but none were issued during the fall of 2005, according to SEC records.” (Elana Schor, “2008 And Counting: Sen. Obama Pivots After Bad Press,” The Hill, 3/8/07)

AVI Investor-Relations Director: “It Doesn’t Sound Like Anything We Would Have Sent Out.” “AVI generally sends mailings to shareholders or institutional investors that proactively request them or sign up for e-mail lists, said Michael Hubbard, AVI’s investor-relations director. ‘It doesn’t sound like anything we would have sent out,’ Hubbard said.” (Elana Schor, “2008 And Counting: Sen. Obama Pivots After Bad Press,” The Hill, 3/8/07)

#6: Obama’s Campaign Only Had “Very Attenuated” Ties To The “1984” Ad Creator:

Obama Suggested That “1984” Ad Creator Phil De Vellis Was The Equivalent Of A Contract Employee And Therefore Could Not Be Held Responsible For His Conduct. “Thursday, Obama said of de Vellis that his campaign had no way of knowing who this person was.’ ‘If I have a phone contract with Verizon and an employee of a phone company does something that you know … we're not responsible for that,’ Obama said.” (Jake Tapper and Jonathan Greenberger, “Anti-Clinton Ad Maker Lived With Obama Senate Staffer,” ABC News, 3/23/07)

De Vellis Is An Employee Of Blue State Digital, A Computer Firm Consulting For Obama. “Obama's campaign says it had no role in creating or posting the ad. But Wednesday, Democratic operative Philip de Vellis took credit for the ad. It turned out that he worked for Blue State Digital, a computer firm that is among Obama's consultants.” (Dan Morain, “Ad Creator Claimed Role In Obama Campaign,” Los Angeles Times, 3/23/07)

Joe Rospars, A Co-Founder Of Blue State Digital, Is Now Obama’s Director Of New Media. “Blue State helped design Obama's Web site, and one of the firm's founding members, Joe Rospars, took a leave from the company to work as Obama's director of new media.” (Jim Kuhnhenn, “Anti-Clinton Ad Puts Spotlight On Obama,” The Associated Press, 3/23/07)

“On Thursday, An Earlier E-Mail Surfaced In Which De Vellis Boasted To Numerous People About His Role In The Creation Of A Web Page, My.BarackObama. Com, A Site Designed By Blue State Digital.” (Dan Morain, “Ad Creator Claimed Role In Obama Campaign,” Los Angeles Times, 3/23/07)

Obama’s Press Secretary Recently Lived With De Vellis, Undermining Obama’s Previous Statements That His Campaign Had Only “Very Attenuated” Ties. “The press secretary for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., recently lived with the creator of the scathingly satirical YouTube video ad that attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., a revelation that seems to undermine the senator's claim that he and his campaign had only ‘very attenuated’ ties with the ad's creator.” (Jake Tapper and Jonathan Greenberger, “Anti-Clinton Ad Maker Lived With Obama Senate Staffer,” ABC News, 3/23/07)

#5: Obama’s Campaign Didn’t Have The “Technical Capacity” To Produce The “1984” Ad:

Obama Claims Campaign Didn’t Have The “Technical Capacity” To Create The Ad. Obama: “But it's not something that we had anything to do with or were aware of and that frankly, given what it looks like, we don't have the technical capacity to create something like that.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 3/24/07)

But The Creator Admitted All It Took Was A “Sunday Afternoon” On His Mac. Phillip de Vellis: “I made the ad on a Sunday afternoon in my apartment using my personal equipment (a Mac and some software), uploaded it to YouTube, and sent links around to blogs.” (The Huffington Post, “I Made the "Vote Different" Ad,” Posted By Phil De Vellis, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-de-vellis-aka-parkridge/i-made-the-vote-differen_b_43989.html, Posted 3/21/07 )

#4: Obama’s Campaign Claimed His High School Friend Tried To Extort Money From Them:

“According To The Obama Campaign, [Obama’s Punahou Classmate Keith] Kakugawa Explicitly Raised The Possibility That He Could Make Up False Stories About Obama, Implying He Would Do So If The Campaign Did Not Give Him Money.” (Maurice Possley, Kirsten Scharnberg and Ray Gibson, “An Old Friend's Troublesome Return,” Chicago Tribune, 3/25/07)

Kakugawa Was “Infuriated” By The Charge And Flatly Denied It. “That allegation infuriated Kakugawa, prompting him to speak to the Tribune after repeatedly refusing to do so. ‘You must understand, I am not an extortionist,’ he said in a telephone interview from Los Angeles, where he is living out of a car with an acquaintance after being released from a California prison on March 10. ‘Listen, I'm homeless. ... I ask everyone I know for money.’” (Maurice Possley, et al, “An Old Friend's Troublesome Return,” Chicago Tribune, 3/25/07)

“Kakugawa Wouldn't Discuss His School Days With Obama Other Than To Say He Considered The Senator ‘A Brother’ And ‘Wouldn't Do A Damn Thing To Ever Hurt His Campaign.’” (Maurice Possley, et al, “An Old Friend's Troublesome Return,” Chicago Tribune, 3/25/07)

#3: Obama Places Himself In The Central Role In The Altgeld Gardens Asbestos Campaign:

Obama “Unfairly Omits Others Responsible For The Successes Of The Asbestos Campaign.” “And though most memoirs place their authors at the center of events, critics of Dreams From My Father say the book unfairly omits others responsible for the successes of the asbestos campaign, an event that Obama portrays as central to his maturation as a political leader.” (Peter Wallsten, “Obama Memoir Left Out Credits For Activism, Critics Say,” Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07)

“Obama Did Not Play The Singular Role In The Asbestos Episode.” “They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir ‘Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.’ Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book.” (Peter Wallsten, “Obama Memoir Left Out Credits For Activism, Critics Say,” Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07)

#2: Obama Had Heated Discussions With A High School Friend Named “Ray” About Racial Issues:

Although Obama Recounts “Heated Conversations About Racism” With A Character He Calls “Ray,” The Real “Ray” Says It Never Happened. “In his best-selling autobiography, ‘Dreams from My Father,’ Obama describes having heated conversations about racism with another black student, ‘Ray.’ The real Ray, Keith Kakugawa . . . said he does recall long, soulful talks with the young Obama and that his friend confided his longing and loneliness. But those talks, Kakugawa said, were not about race. ‘Not even close’ . . .” (Kirsten Scharnberg and Kim Barker, “The Not-So-Simple Story Of Barack Obama's Youth,” Chicago Tribune, 3/25/07)

Obama Did Not Participate In Discussions On Race With His Fellow Black Classmates In High School. “The handful of black students who attended Punahou School in Hawaii, for instance, say they struggled mightily with issues of race and racism there. But absent from those discussions, they say, was another student then known as Barry Obama.” (Kirsten Scharnberg and Kim Barker, “The Not-So-Simple Story Of Barack Obama's Youth,” Chicago Tribune, 3/25/07)

#1: Seeing A Photograph In Life Or Ebony Magazine Changed Obama’s Life:

The Life Magazine Article And Photograph Obama Discusses “Doesn’t Exist.” “Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians.” (Kirsten Scharnberg and Kim Barker, “The Not-So-Simple Story Of Barack Obama's Youth,” Chicago Tribune, 3/25/07)

Obama Volunteered It May Have Been Ebony Magazine, But No Such Ebony Article Matched Obama’s Description. “When asked about the discrepancy, Obama said in a recent interview, ‘It might have been an Ebony or it might have been ... who knows what it was?’ (At the request of the Tribune, archivists at Ebony searched their catalogue of past articles, none of which matched what Obama recalled.)” (Kirsten Scharnberg and Kim Barker, “The Not-So-Simple Story Of Barack Obama's Youth,” Chicago Tribune, 3/25/07)

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2008, 06:13 PM
...Here is a nice list to start...

If it's all true, it's a bit inconvenient for the senator.

Logical
04-17-2008, 07:37 PM
His lie about how his parents met in Selma and caused him to be born is a doozy. The lies he's told about his father are pretty well documented as well. The lie he told about the Life magazine article is pretty important too when you consider he claims that was his epiphany moment.

Here is a nice list to start. Look for each of these coming to a tv set near you in the not too distant future:I would say there are a couple there that might be considered lies equivalent to the ones Hillary has told, so I give you your point. Personally most of the others involve nitpicking (the Professor one as an example) or the reliability of accuser over Obama. Clearly the Selma one is very clear.

patteeu
04-18-2008, 05:20 AM
ROFL.

Right. It's only politicians that fight back when attacked.

You've hit a new low.

Yeah, there's nothing surprising about what memyselfi has pointed out at all. We all knew that Obama's claim to be a new kind of hopeful politician was :BS: from the start, didn't we?

patteeu
04-18-2008, 05:26 AM
LMAO

I think we have a new nickname for that vile, rancid, festering wedge of butt cheese, but it may be a violation of Godwin's Law. Can we get a ruling from the Internet Referees on this?

I don't really get it. What does the effort to expose Obama for what he is have to do with Hitler?

patteeu
04-18-2008, 05:40 AM
The only thing that you add to this forum is hate. You are a vortex of hate. You wear it like a coat. You crave every ounce of hate you can wring out of this forum. And boy do you get it. But no matter how much hate you swallow up, it never seems to be enough to quench your thirst for it.

I pity you for the black hole that you have in your heart that requires you to hunger for a neverending supply of hate.

I disagree. I think she's just been searching for a way to win my approval.

I agree TJ. Lately I have found a new level of respect for people on the right on this board who had to put up with the vile shit that comes out of her mouth. I also will take some responsibility for not sticking up for them or for ignoring what she says and how she acts toward them.

I have also defended Denise from being banned from this place but if a vote were to come up again I think I would have to reconsider.

I just want to apologize to all the conservatives on this board who have been subjected to this vile POS and I apologize for being part of a community that has kept her around.

I've always defended memyselfi from being banned even though she's almost never seen eye to eye with me politically (until the great uniter came along, that is). I don't think that type of thing should be determined by whether or not someone is on your side of the political argument. What's she doing that is even close to bannable?

patteeu
04-18-2008, 05:45 AM
He is not going to go on the offensive and start smearing people like the Clintons do or the Republicans.

Obama smeared John McCain when he knowingly lied about his position regarding being in Iraq for 100 years.

NewChief
04-18-2008, 05:52 AM
If you can't handle Denise, then put her on iggy. If everyone put her on iggy and stopped giving her the attention she craves, she'd go away.

memyselfI
04-18-2008, 06:00 AM
Back on topic...

Obama's conversion from messiah to mere mortal is being noticed. And Brooks makes the same point that I do. If Obamessiah can't even win over the majority of Dems then how on earth will he win over the majority of the country.

How Obama Fell to Earth
By DAVID BROOKS

Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.

He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.

Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.

If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge — in which case he would destroy his credibility — or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.

Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the “bitter” comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry’s windsurfing or John Edwards’s haircut as clues about shared values.

When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago.

Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he’s one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.

It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.

General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I’ve asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that’s going to be hard.

A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.

Welcome to 2008. Everybody’s miserable.

Chief Henry
04-18-2008, 08:06 AM
David Brooks nails Barry. But David Brooks says everybody is misserable .

I'm not thats for dam sure. Maybe David Brooks was talking about dems
with his statement. Maybe David Brooks considers him self a dem.

memyselfI
04-18-2008, 08:23 PM
I would say there are a couple there that might be considered lies equivalent to the ones Hillary has told, so I give you your point. Personally most of the others involve nitpicking (the Professor one as an example) or the reliability of accuser over Obama. Clearly the Selma one is very clear.

For Jim, with love.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YFwko58Nsfk&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YFwko58Nsfk&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Chief Henry
04-19-2008, 06:39 AM
How recent of a speech is this ? It looks very recent to me.

Barry is a bad bowler, but he must be one hell of a fisherman !
That story is one hell of a wopper.

Why can't Hillary use this ammo? Would she look like a racist
if she used it?

The general election will be a hoot to watch ROFL

Tim Russert will play that video to Barry some Sunday morning
on "Meet the Depressed" and then Tim Russert will show in bolded text
what his real B-Day is and then play the audio of Barry talking about his
real B-Day.

Will Tim Russert be labeled a racist at that time?

irishjayhawk
04-19-2008, 10:23 AM
Yeah, there's nothing surprising about what memyselfi has pointed out at all. We all knew that Obama's claim to be a new kind of hopeful politician was :BS: from the start, didn't we?

You've now hit a new low as well.

Hope does not translate into won't attack after being attacked.

Can you name an attack Obama has instigated without provocation? I bet it's pretty hard.

irishjayhawk
04-19-2008, 10:24 AM
Obama smeared John McCain when he knowingly lied about his position regarding being in Iraq for 100 years.

Yes, not a very hopeful outlook by McCain.

Adept Havelock
04-19-2008, 10:36 AM
I don't really get it. What does the effort to expose Obama for what he is have to do with Hitler?

I suppose you missed Holmez's nickname for the eternal sandyvag: "memeinkampfI ".

It's really funny watching you carry meme's water. Keep it up. Just remember what happened to Stalin when he climbed in bed with Uncle Adolph. :p

For the record, I am NOT calling you a Communist, only stating you may be making the same historical error.

As for me, I'm quite content down here in the mountains of Switzerland gorging myself on Chocolate and dallying with the Frauleins! Ho-de-lay-ho-de-lay Ho-de-lay-hi-hoo!!

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 10:37 AM
Hussein is going to have a tough time winning back the middle once all this is over. "I am woman, here me roar".

jettio
04-19-2008, 11:14 AM
Hussein is going to have a tough time winning back the middle once all this is over. "I am woman, here me roar".

John Paul Stephens is pushing 90. Considering age, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter are more or as likely to retire as Scalia and Kennedy during the next president's tenure. Alito, Roberts and Thomas are still young and may not retire for a long time.

McCain's position during the campaign will be so anti-abortion that there would be no other reasonable expectation other than he would promise to appoint a conservative that will deliver an anti-Roe v. Wade majority.

If a bare majority of Americans are against abortion, there are more Americans that believe that even if abortion is a moral wrong, it may not be best to leave it up to every state legislature to decide where it is allowed and where it is not.

Also, there is a majority of Americans that prefer to see a balanced supreme court with smart and qualified justices that are not all from the same school of thought. If Stephens, Ginsburg and Souter are the liberals and Breyer and Kennedy are the moderates, most americans do not want to see them replaced with conservatives when Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia are already there.

HonestChieffan
04-19-2008, 11:17 AM
John Paul Stephens is pushing 90. Considering age, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter are more or as likely to retire as Scalia and Kennedy during the next president's tenure. Alito, Roberts and Thomas are still young and may not retire for a long time.

McCain's position during the campaign will be so anti-abortion that there would be no other reasonable expectation other than he would promise to appoint a conservative that will deliver an anti-Roe v. Wade majority.

If a bare majority of Americans are against abortion, there are more Americans that believe that even if abortion is a moral wrong, it may not be best to leave it up to every state legislature to decide where it is allowed and where it is not.

Also, there is a majority of Americans that prefer to see a balanced supreme court with smart and qualified justices that are not all form the same school of thought. If Stephens, Ginsburg and Souter are the liberals and Breyer and Kennedy are the moderates, most americans do not want to see them replaced with conservatives when Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia are already there.

And you really believe that?

jettio
04-19-2008, 11:18 AM
John Paul Stephens is pushing 90. Considering age, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter are more or as likely to retire as Scalia and Kennedy during the next president's tenure. Alito, Roberts and Thomas are still young and may not retire for a long time.

McCain's position during the campaign will be so anti-abortion that there would be no other reasonable expectation other than he would promise to appoint a conservative that will deliver an anti-Roe v. Wade majority.

If a bare majority of Americans are against abortion, there are more Americans that believe that even if abortion is a moral wrong, it may not be best to leave it up to every state legislature to decide where it is allowed and where it is not.

Also, there is a majority of Americans that prefer to see a balanced supreme court with smart and qualified justices that are not all form the same school of thought. If Stephens, Ginsburg and Souter are the liberals and Breyer and Kennedy are the moderates, most americans do not want to see them replaced with conservatives when Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia are already there.


Hell, Stephens could announce in October that he plans to retire in 2009, and that could put the chips on the table.

jettio
04-19-2008, 11:19 AM
And you really believe that?


You need to spell out what you disagree with.

HonestChieffan
04-19-2008, 11:33 AM
You believe people want to liberalize the court?

Adept Havelock
04-19-2008, 11:47 AM
You believe people want to liberalize the court?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, as you've proved time and again. He didn't say that, or anything close to it.

He explained he believes most people want a court that reflects a multitude of opinions, as America itself does. A court divided between left, right and center, as we have now. They don't want one dominated by Conservatives or Liberals.

I suspect thats true, it's just the ideologues of the Far Left and Far Right usually bray louder about it.

jettio
04-19-2008, 12:06 PM
You believe people want to liberalize the court?

Replacing a liberal with a liberal does not "liberalize the Court."

I believe people are willing to fight harder for a balanced court than to fight for completely dominating the court with a philosophy not reflective of all of the American people.

Clarence Thomas was nominated to replace Thurgood Marshall so that there would still be at least 1 black on the court.

Brandeis was the first Jewish justice 1919-1939. Cardozo was the second 1932-1938. Frankfurter replaced Cardozo (1939). Goldberg replaced Frankfurter(1962). Fortas replaced Goldberg (1965). There was no Jewish justice from 1969-1993, then Clinton nominated Ginsburg (1993) and Breyer (1994).

B*sh's first choice to replace O'Connor was Harriet Meyers. If Ginsburg retires next, it will be a woman nominee.

It has been the case for a long time that supreme court nominations are political and people fight harder to have a fair shot than they do for a chance to have more power than they deserve if you go by the general consensus.

It is certain to be a majority Democratic Senate after 2008, and that might maker it possible for liberal justices to retire without too much worry in 2008-2009. But McCain can't very well go ahead and say to disappointed Hillary supporters that his promise to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court, is not anything to worry about because they won't get through the Senate.

HonestChieffan
04-19-2008, 12:13 PM
Well, he did say that "If Stephens, Ginsburg and Souter are the liberals and Breyer and Kennedy are the moderates, most americans do not want to see them replaced with conservatives when Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia are already there."

That led me to understand his point was that that people would support liberalization before more conservative judges.

So, what was his point if thats not it?

Adept Havelock
04-19-2008, 12:17 PM
Well, he did say that "If Stephens, Ginsburg and Souter are the liberals and Breyer and Kennedy are the moderates, most americans do not want to see them replaced with conservatives when Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia are already there."

That led me to understand his point was that that people would support liberalization before more conservative judges.

So, what was his point if thats not it?

:spock:

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, as you've proved time and again.

I'm not speaking for him, but my understanding was exactly what you quoted.

Seems to me he's saying most people don't want Liberals and Centrists replaced with Conservatives. As he didn't comment on replacing Conservatives with Liberals and Centrists, I don't know his opinion on that. However, that latter scenario is the only one in which your braying about "liberalizing" the entire court makes any sense.

I'm inclined to agree with him on this point. I think most people (excepting ideologues of the Far Left and Far Right) want a Supreme Court, that reflects a broad swath of political opinions and ideas as America does. It's just the nutters on the left and right tend to scream louder, so they get noticed more. JMO.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 12:17 PM
You've now hit a new low as well.

Hope does not translate into won't attack after being attacked.

Can you name an attack Obama has instigated without provocation? I bet it's pretty hard.

Sure I can. He smeared John McCain by saying that McCain is willing to fight for 100 years in Iraq. That was unprovoked.

In a more general sense, you must not read enough of my posts if you think this is a "new low" for me. But I do think it's weird that you consider it a "low" to accuse a politician of acting like a "typical politician". There's a reason why Chris Matthews didn't name his show "Whiffleball".

HolmeZz
04-19-2008, 12:19 PM
Sure I can. He smeared John McCain by saying that McCain is willing to fight for 100 years in Iraq. That was unprovoked.

Quote me where Obama said 'fight'.

I haven't seen him go any further than say McCain has no problem staying in Iraq for 100 years.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 12:22 PM
I suppose you missed Holmez's nickname for the eternal sandyvag: "memeinkampfI ".

It's really funny watching you carry meme's water. Keep it up. Just remember what happened to Stalin when he climbed in bed with Uncle Adolph. :p

For the record, I am NOT calling you a Communist, only stating you may be making the same historical error.

As for me, I'm quite content down here in the mountains of Switzerland gorging myself on Chocolate and dallying with the Frauleins! Ho-de-lay-ho-de-lay Ho-de-lay-hi-hoo!!

HolmeZz's nickname is part of my confusion. Why is memyselfi being compared to Hitler?

And LMAO yes, I'm fully aware that memyselfi is only temporarily on the "good guys" side. But it is kind of fun to see the "teams" mixed up a little bit as Ron Paul and Obama v Hillary have done.

Adept Havelock
04-19-2008, 12:23 PM
HolmeZz's nickname is part of my confusion. Why is memyselfi being compared to Hitler?


Same reason she was tarred with insults by the Right when she was carrying water for the Left, AFAICS. :shrug:

HolmeZz
04-19-2008, 12:23 PM
HolmeZz's nickname is part of my confusion. Why is memyselfi being compared to Hitler?

It basically had to do with the fact that all she does is spew hate. CCW is a miserable person. Dare I say bitter.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 12:32 PM
Quote me where Obama said 'fight'.

I haven't seen him go any further than say McCain has no problem staying in Iraq for 100 years.

First of all, I wasn't quoting him so don't get too hung up on one specific word. However, even without remembering his specific language, it turns out he did use that word on at least one occasion. Here are a couple of examples of his oft-repeated and unprovoked smear:

"[Sen. McCain] says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq ..." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Primary Results, Houston, TX, 2/19/08)

"And when it comes to foreign policy, John McCain says he wants to fight a hundred year war, a hundred years he says, as long as it takes." (Mike Dorning, "Obama Fires Away At McCain," Chicago Tribune’s "The Swamp" Blog (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/obama_fires_away_at_mccain.html), 2/9/08)

patteeu
04-19-2008, 12:38 PM
Same reason she was tarred with insults by the Right when she was carrying water for the Left, AFAICS. :shrug:

I remember calling her a name one time and feeling guilty about it later. I'm not talking about something like "neoisolationist" or "surrenderist" or "condescending, elitist, insincere, pandering, doubletalking, radically leftist Senator from Illinois", I'm talking about something like "bitch" or "whore". I *think* that's the only time I've done that. I know I never called her a nazi. Not because she never irritates me, but because I know she'd get more out of it than I would.

HolmeZz
04-19-2008, 12:43 PM
First of all, I wasn't quoting him so don't get too hung up on one specific word. However, even without remembering his specific language, it turns out he did use that word on at least one occasion. Here are a couple of examples of his oft-repeated and unprovoked smear:

I don't think either quote is all that inaccurate until McCain lays out a plan and gives everyone an idea how long he wants to be at war in Iraq. He hasn't, therefore the sentiment isn't really true or false.

memyselfI
04-19-2008, 12:49 PM
HolmeZz's nickname is part of my confusion. Why is memyselfi being compared to Hitler?

And LMAO yes, I'm fully aware that memyselfi is only temporarily on the "good guys" side. But it is kind of fun to see the "teams" mixed up a little bit as Ron Paul and Obama v Hillary have done.

Here is where people are confused. To be against Obamessiah is not to embrace RWNJs or McCain. If anything, this whole Obamphenom is, in my mind, GWB and his wacko supporters part 2.

I feel EXACTLY like I did 8 years ago arguing that the guy is not POTUS material, that he might be charismatic (remember he was labeled as such) but that a good president does not make, and that he would be a disaster even by Republican standards...

it's like DEJAVU but now it's the folks on my side who have their heads up their asses and wish to repeat history. The difference being that it will be the LWNJs excusing, explaining, and apologizing for their inept POTUS.

I won't be one of them.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 12:54 PM
I don't think either quote is all that inaccurate until McCain lays out a plan and gives everyone an idea how long he wants to be at war in Iraq. He hasn't, therefore the sentiment isn't really true or false.

Are you serious? Here is the McCain quote in case you haven't seen the qualifiers that make Obama's statements (particularly the one where he uses the word "fight") lies:

Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me.

It takes an impossible level of spin to suggest that McCain envisions us "fighting" in Iraq for 100 years without "being injured or harmed or wounded or killed". The Obama smear is so clearly false that you need to go sit in a corner in your room right now and quietly examine how far your feelings for Obama are making you go in his defense. You're in a 10 minute time out starting right now.

HolmeZz
04-19-2008, 01:01 PM
I know the quote well, and McCain could make it go away if he'd spell out how long he has no problem with us fighting in Iraq. He hasn't given any kind of estimate as far as that goes, and until he does, his statement of staying in Iraq for 100 years is plenty fair game.

jettio
04-19-2008, 01:11 PM
Are you serious? Here is the McCain quote in case you haven't seen the qualifiers that make Obama's statements (particularly the one where he uses the word "fight") lies:



It takes an impossible level of spin to suggest that McCain envisions us "fighting" in Iraq for 100 years without "being injured or harmed or wounded or killed". The Obama smear is so clearly false that you need to go sit in a corner in your room right now and quietly examine how far your feelings for Obama are making you go in his defense. You're in a 10 minute time out starting right now.

So your position is that B*sh never lied about being so afraid of Saddam that he thought UN weapons inspections would not nullify the threat Saddam posed.

And now you want to do micro-surgery on one candidate calling out another candidate for having a flippant attitude about the unnecessary war. McCain made a stupid comment about 100 years in Iraq, it was stupid when he said it, and it is stupid no matter how you try to explain it.

You can keep pizzing and moaning about what he really meant even though what he really meant was an unnecessarily stupid thing for him to say when he should care about the sacrifice our soliders make when in Iraq and away from their families.

Man, this country is going to be so much better off when folks like you with your head up B*sh's azz are dissapointed on election day.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 01:11 PM
I know the quote well, and McCain could make it go away if he'd spell out how long he has no problem with us fighting in Iraq. He hasn't given any kind of estimate as far as that goes, and until he does, his statement of staying in Iraq for 100 years is plenty fair game.

Fair game? Sure, it's fair game to address the things McCain actually says, but how is it ever fair game to lie about what your opponent says? I guess in Obamaworld, you guys don't play by the rules that lies and fraudulent smears are always wrong.

Now get back in your corner and think about it until your timeout is over.

NewChief
04-19-2008, 01:18 PM
Fair game? Sure, it's fair game to address the things McCain actually says, but how is it ever fair game to lie about what your opponent says? I guess in Obamaworld, you guys don't play by the rules that lies and fraudulent smears are always wrong.

Now get back in your corner and think about it until your timeout is over.

Bro. I don't think you need to be lecturing other people on conflation of quotes. You've written a dissertation worth of posts based on your distorted assumptions about what we can deduce from Obama's "bitter" quote.

jettio
04-19-2008, 01:19 PM
Are you serious? Here is the McCain quote in case you haven't seen the qualifiers that make Obama's statements (particularly the one where he uses the word "fight") lies:



It takes an impossible level of spin to suggest that McCain envisions us "fighting" in Iraq for 100 years without "being injured or harmed or wounded or killed". The Obama smear is so clearly false that you need to go sit in a corner in your room right now and quietly examine how far your feelings for Obama are making you go in his defense. You're in a 10 minute time out starting right now.

B*sh and Rove are the ones that did a smear job on McCain in South Carolina in 2000.

You have heard of them haven't you. IIRC, they are two azzholes that you like to stick your head up in.

You are pizzing and moaning about Obama calling out McCain on something actually stated for no reason and yet you have insisted on this board that B*sh and Rove do not lie.

You ought to write a book about how smart an idiot has to be in order to be such a selective moralist to laud B*sh and Rove as heroes after what they have done to our country and after what they did to McCain in 2000 in South Carolina and then pizz and moan a hysterectomy over Obama calling out Mccain for something stupid that McCain just spouted off gratuitously.

HolmeZz
04-19-2008, 03:21 PM
Fair game? Sure, it's fair game to address the things McCain actually says, but how is it ever fair game to lie about what your opponent says? I guess in Obamaworld, you guys don't play by the rules that lies and fraudulent smears are always wrong.

Now get back in your corner and think about it until your timeout is over.

It's not any different than McCain distorting Obama's comments and saying that Barack said people are only religious and only value the 2nd amendment because of economic conditions.

But of course I'm not expecting to hear much from you on that.

patteeu
04-20-2008, 07:12 AM
So your position is that B*sh never lied about being so afraid of Saddam that he thought UN weapons inspections would not nullify the threat Saddam posed.

And now you want to do micro-surgery on one candidate calling out another candidate for having a flippant attitude about the unnecessary war. McCain made a stupid comment about 100 years in Iraq, it was stupid when he said it, and it is stupid no matter how you try to explain it.

You can keep pizzing and moaning about what he really meant even though what he really meant was an unnecessarily stupid thing for him to say when he should care about the sacrifice our soliders make when in Iraq and away from their families.

Man, this country is going to be so much better off when folks like you with your head up B*sh's azz are dissapointed on election day.

This is the kind of outright lie that you guys can't seem to produce when you whine about Bush lying us into war.

patteeu
04-20-2008, 07:15 AM
Bro. I don't think you need to be lecturing other people on conflation of quotes. You've written a dissertation worth of posts based on your distorted assumptions about what we can deduce from Obama's "bitter" quote.

I'm not lecturing someone about conflation of quotes or about some kind of reasonable interpretation of a quote, I'm lecturing him about a clear cut Obama lie.

patteeu
04-20-2008, 07:18 AM
B*sh and Rove are the ones that did a smear job on McCain in South Carolina in 2000.

You have heard of them haven't you. IIRC, they are two azzholes that you like to stick your head up in.

You are pizzing and moaning about Obama calling out McCain on something actually stated for no reason and yet you have insisted on this board that B*sh and Rove do not lie.

You ought to write a book about how smart an idiot has to be in order to be such a selective moralist to laud B*sh and Rove as heroes after what they have done to our country and after what they did to McCain in 2000 in South Carolina and then pizz and moan a hysterectomy over Obama calling out Mccain for something stupid that McCain just spouted off gratuitously.

It's clear to me that you don't care about the truth here. Of course, that has been apparent since you started claiming that Bush lied us into war.

patteeu
04-20-2008, 07:24 AM
It's not any different than McCain distorting Obama's comments and saying that Barack said people are only religious and only value the 2nd amendment because of economic conditions.

But of course I'm not expecting to hear much from you on that.

Obama's statement was far from clear on that point. McCain explicitly rejected the concept that Obama is dishonestly trying to pin on him. However, I'm not here to claim that McCain has never lied about Obama. McCain is no less a typical politician than Obama is. The difference is that he hasn't, as his main selling point, relied on convincing people that he's a new kind of politician who is above personal attacks and distortions the way Obama has.

jettio
04-20-2008, 08:09 AM
This is the kind of outright lie that you guys can't seem to produce when you whine about Bush lying us into war.


In other words, you can't speak directly to the question as to whether B*sh honestly feared Saddam and whether he honestly believed that the UN Inspections and the international pressure brought to bear would have nullified any real threat that Saddam posed.

jettio
04-20-2008, 08:14 AM
It's clear to me that you don't care about the truth here. Of course, that has been apparent since you started claiming that Bush lied us into war.


What is the truth about the campaign aganst McCain in South Carolina in 2000?

Who were the people behind it and have you supported those people and the folks that benefitted from it?

What did you do about it then and how does that qualitatively compare to what you are now pizzing and moaning about over McCain cavalierly talking about 100 years in Iraq because he cares little about servicemen in Iraq being separated from their families.

McCain was raised in a family where the men served the country and left the family behind while they drank and slept around. Today's servicepeople are more family oriented than they were in McCain's day, and 100 years in Iraq does not account for that.

patteeu
04-20-2008, 10:59 AM
In other words, you can't speak directly to the question as to whether B*sh honestly feared Saddam and whether he honestly believed that the UN Inspections and the international pressure brought to bear would have nullified any real threat that Saddam posed.

:spock: I didn't detect any fear so the issue of whether or not it was honest fear is out of place.

patteeu
04-20-2008, 11:06 AM
What is the truth about the campaign aganst McCain in South Carolina in 2000?

Who were the people behind it and have you supported those people and the folks that benefitted from it?

What did you do about it then and how does that qualitatively compare to what you are now pizzing and moaning about over McCain cavalierly talking about 100 years in Iraq because he cares little about servicemen in Iraq being separated from their families.

McCain was raised in a family where the men served the country and left the family behind while they drank and slept around. Today's servicepeople are more family oriented than they were in McCain's day, and 100 years in Iraq does not account for that.

Neither you nor I know what the truth was in South Carolina in 2000. Neither of us know who those people were so I can't answer your questions. It sounds like you've jumped to a specific conclusion without adequate supporting evidence, which I guess isn't all that surprising given your wild claims about Bush and the war in Iraq.

If today's servicepeople are dealing with living in Germany and Korea, they can handle the 100 years of Iraq that McCain was talking about.

jettio
04-20-2008, 11:21 AM
:spock: I didn't detect any fear so the issue of whether or not it was honest fear is out of place.

What was the reason for going to war?

Looks like we know what the price has been so far. What was the reason for paying that price?

jettio
04-20-2008, 11:29 AM
Neither you nor I know what the truth was in South Carolina in 2000. Neither of us know who those people were so I can't answer your questions. It sounds like you've jumped to a specific conclusion without adequate supporting evidence, which I guess isn't all that surprising given your wild claims about Bush and the war in Iraq.

If today's servicepeople are dealing with living in Germany and Korea, they can handle the 100 years of Iraq that McCain was talking about.


In the general election, Obama will get the highest percentage of the military vote by any democrat in decades.

McCain's inbred attitude that today's military and military families are like they were for the last three generations in his family, when the men were career warriors who spent little time at home and drank and slept around won't be the only reason for that, but it will be a contributing factor.

In South Carolina in 2000, McCain and B*sh were the only ones who had a shot at getting the GOP nomination. B*sh and his supporters are the ones who pulled that sh*t on McCain and after he loses the general, the truce that he made so that he can run for President again will be over.

McCain will have a lot more to say about campaign dishonor in the years to come and he will have more to say about what was done in 2000, than what was done in 2008.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2008, 01:23 PM
Neither of us know who those people were so I can't answer your questions. It sounds like you've jumped to a specific conclusion without adequate supporting evidence, which I guess isn't all that surprising given your wild claims about Bush and the war in Iraq.
I don't think it's "jumping to conclusions" at all. Who would have had a motive to do that to McCain? It's a logical starting point.

If today's servicepeople are dealing with living in Germany and Korea, they can handle the 100 years of Iraq that McCain was talking about.

Well there's no need for us to be there now either or that long. In fact I read that South Korea is willing to look at things differently now too.

patteeu
04-21-2008, 05:58 AM
What was the reason for going to war?

Looks like we know what the price has been so far. What was the reason for paying that price?

A bunch of the reasons are listed here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/).

patteeu
04-21-2008, 06:02 AM
In the general election, Obama will get the highest percentage of the military vote by any democrat in decades.

McCain's inbred attitude that today's military and military families are like they were for the last three generations in his family, when the men were career warriors who spent little time at home and drank and slept around won't be the only reason for that, but it will be a contributing factor.

In South Carolina in 2000, McCain and B*sh were the only ones who had a shot at getting the GOP nomination. B*sh and his supporters are the ones who pulled that sh*t on McCain and after he loses the general, the truce that he made so that he can run for President again will be over.

McCain will have a lot more to say about campaign dishonor in the years to come and he will have more to say about what was done in 2000, than what was done in 2008.

You don't know who did what in 2000 and chances are pretty good that McCain doesn't either.

But what we do know is that your statement about how McCain's 100 year comment doesn't account for today's family-oriented service person is wrong.

patteeu
04-21-2008, 06:04 AM
I don't think it's "jumping to conclusions" at all. Who would have had a motive to do that to McCain? It's a logical starting point.

To blame Bush for it is to jump to an unsubstantiated conclusion.

jettio
04-21-2008, 08:15 AM
You don't know who did what in 2000 and chances are pretty good that McCain doesn't either.

But what we do know is that your statement about how McCain's 100 year comment doesn't account for today's family-oriented service person is wrong.

Check the numbers in November, Obama will get the highest percentage of the military of any Democrat in decades.

Why don't you look up those numbers from past elections and post them here?

I am sure those are going to be some pretty easy numbers for Obama to leap over.

jettio
04-21-2008, 08:18 AM
To blame Bush for it is to jump to an unsubstantiated conclusion.


Every post you have made in support of B*sh since I joined chiefs planet has been an unsubstantiated conclusion.

You ought to change your username to Unsub Con Clue.

patteeu
04-21-2008, 08:46 AM
Check the numbers in November, Obama will get the highest percentage of the military of any Democrat in decades.

Why don't you look up those numbers from past elections and post them here?

I am sure those are going to be some pretty easy numbers for Obama to leap over.

What does that have to do with anything?

Chief Henry
04-21-2008, 09:18 AM
Did any of yu watch the video in post 68 ?

BucEyedPea
04-21-2008, 09:44 AM
To blame Bush for it is to jump to an unsubstantiated conclusion.

It had to be someone who wanted to Bush to win. Or was in his camp. That's good enough for me.


You don't know who did what in 2000 and chances are pretty good that McCain doesn't either.
I read an interview with Cindi McCain and they have an idea who did it. She also said they trust no one in DC—that John and her know they are the only two people they can trust.

Baby Lee
04-21-2008, 10:05 AM
It had to be someone who wanted to Bush to win. Or was in his camp. That's good enough for me.



I read an interview with Cindi McCain and they have an idea who did it. She also said they trust no one in DC—that John and her know they are the only two people they can trust.

So . . . you have established that this was done by one or more homo sapiens. Wow!!

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-21-2008, 10:16 AM
So . . . you have established that this was done by one or more homo sapiens. Wow!!

Ahh moral relativism at its finest.

A lack of repudiation for those vicious and unfounded attacks against McCain is nothing less than a tacit acceptance of them. In fact, it's grade A chickenshit.

Baby Lee
04-21-2008, 10:23 AM
Ahh moral relativism at its finest.

A lack of repudiation for those vicious and unfounded attacks against McCain is nothing less than a tacit acceptance of them. In fact, it's grade A chickenshit.

Who said he didn't repudiate the attacks?

Trying to conflate my point with some kind of support for the attack is a Grade A steaming pile of manure.

memyselfI
04-21-2008, 10:28 AM
Check the numbers in November, Obama will get the highest percentage of the military of any Democrat in decades.

Why don't you look up those numbers from past elections and post them here?

I am sure those are going to be some pretty easy numbers for Obama to leap over.

Maybe, maybe not. Meet the Obamas.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/onOYL2ZG7fk&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/onOYL2ZG7fk&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


***Excellent info past the Hillary plug

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-21-2008, 06:16 PM
Who said he didn't repudiate the attacks?

Trying to conflate my point with some kind of support for the attack is a Grade A steaming pile of manure.

No, he just let them do their damage, and waited, then waited some more, didn't read a few more papers, waited a while longer, and then offered a half-assed rebuttal after McCain's political corpse had been strung up from the tresses of a bridge.

It's the same thing he did with the Swiftboat ads...and your attempt to marginalize people who critiqued his approach (like you are doing with BEP) is showing your own acceptance for those tactics.

It's pure Atwater rat shit, and you're offering a John Gotti-like defense of W's involvement in the South Carolina primary.

banyon
04-25-2008, 07:18 AM
Bitter Fruit in Pennsylvania
April 17, 2008

http://fanonite.org/2008/04/17/bitter-fruit-in-pennsylvania/

Gary Younge

Like many, if not most, readers of this magazine, I often vote against my economic interests. Whenever I vote for a candidate who wants to redistribute wealth — which is basically whenever I vote — I am electing to make myself poorer. Like many of you, then, I am a values voter. There are more important things to me than money. This is not entirely selfless. I vote not only for a world I want to see but a world I want to be part of and a world I think would welcome me as part of it. It has never really occurred to me that I might cast a vote in solidarity with those who earn like me.

So the fact that so many white working-class people in this country vote Republican does not strike me, a priori, as an aberration. That they put different priorities (like opposing gay marriage or abortion) ahead of their financial well-being does not mean they are any less savvy about their interests than I am. I think their priorities are wrong. But I don’t think them irrational.

Barack Obama was quick to admit –as he should have been — that his characterization of poor white Pennsylvanians as “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations” was a mistake. To suggest that poor white people who vote Republican in this country are the victims of a collective electoral false consciousness is as convenient as it is deluded. It forgoes any effort to understand why they do what they do or how we might persuade them to do otherwise, suggesting instead we are high-minded and they have been hoodwinked. If that’s our attitude, no wonder they vote for the other side. Ask any neocon, and he’ll tell you — trying to liberate people who have no interest in the freedom you have in store for them is an exhausting and unrewarding business.

But that doesn’t mean Obama was entirely wrong. Poor white people all over this country have plenty to be bitter about. Their jobs are being outsourced, their wages are stagnant and their home values are falling. At the same time, their health costs and college fees are rising and unemployment rates are rising. When it comes to social mobility, the essential ingredient of the American dream, this country’s class system is going backward. According to most respected calculations, America has a more class-ridden society today than most of Europe, including my native England. That is saying something. But Obama was stupid. In response to a question about why he wasn’t doing better with a certain group of voters, he blamed the voters. Worse still, strategically, he disparaged a group of poor people from whom he needs votes to a group of rich people from whom he needs money.

Whether coastal liberals like it or not, guns, God, whiteness and patriotism are important to lots of people in this country. If you want them to vote on the basis of different priorities, then you need to give them something to vote for. Unlike Republicans, who openly lobby for the class interests of their corporate supporters and deliver on them, Democrats do not promise substantial changes to the lives of ordinary working people and rarely deliver even on the symbolic ones. In short, Democrats demand a greater class attachment than they offer and therefore deserve.

But if Obama’s remarks were gauche, the responses they have elicited have been galling. Since Hillary Clinton and John McCain supported NAFTA, among a host of other measures that have undermined the livelihoods of working-class Americans, they were ill equipped to tackle what was fundamentally wrong with Obama’s comments. So rather than attack the entitlement implicit in the message, they went for the aesthetic qualities of the messenger. Senator Clinton (Wellesley, Yale, Wal-Mart) branded Obama (Punahou, Columbia, Harvard) an “elitist,” and McCain (the son and grandson of four-star admirals, educated at a Virginia prep school and the US Naval Academy) called him “out of touch.” And so the political elite, drawn from the social elite and funded by the economic elite, trade blows over who is the most effete. Unable to talk about the working class as a group with a collective set of interests that are different from and at times antagonistic to the interests of corporations and the state, they elevate it to a cultural artifact. The fact that the controversy over Obama’s comments did not appear to affect his standing in the polls suggests that it resonated only among the media elites.

As factories close and homes foreclose, society becomes divided not between corporation and union or Wall Street and Main Street but between regular and latte or Budweiser and chardonnay. As happened with John Edwards’s haircut, John Kerry’s windsurfing and Al Gore’s earth tones, those who claim to speak for, or even about, working-class people are ruled admissible not in terms of what they would or would not do but how they do or do not appear. Class is not elevated to politics but reduced to a performance, rendering George W. Bush–the teetotaling son of a President–the down-to-earth candidate you would most like to have a drink with.

“You always have this question that erupts around election time: who would you rather have a beer with?” explained Contessa Brewer on MSNBC. “And so it’s not just what the candidates are saying to appeal to folks–they want to be seen as the guy or the gal next door–but they also have to do it.”

“And let’s not forget Barack Obama bowling,” replied Reuters Washington correspondent Jon Decker. “You know, for someone who’s in a bowling league in northeast central Pennsylvania, in Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, they can’t identify with someone getting a thirty-seven over seven frames.”

Presumably they would have a lot more in common with the person who bowls 112 and then lays them off and steals their pension.

patteeu
04-25-2008, 08:42 AM
It had to be someone who wanted to Bush to win. Or was in his camp. That's good enough for me.

It wouldn't be good enough for you if it was Don Black (white supremacist founder of Stormfront) acting against an opponent of the guy he supported, Ron Paul.

I read an interview with Cindi McCain and they have an idea who did it. She also said they trust no one in DC—that John and her know they are the only two people they can trust.

Did she say who that was and provide any evidence? I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is no.