How did the debate go?

bottom line blogs and such are biased and littered with opinion.. not fact.. if anyone has doubts about who to vote for go to fact check. org.. that is an unbiased look what is the truth and what isnt... the rest is just innuendo.

oh and lie count is good also... http://liecount.com/
 
bottom line blogs and such are biased and littered with opinion.. not fact.. if anyone has doubts about who to vote for go to fact check. org.. that is an unbiased look what is the truth and what isnt... the rest is just innuendo.

oh and lie count is good also... http://liecount.com/


Can I get an amen! Think it'll sink in this time? :laughing:

We could all google what we hear about the candidates and post a bunch of nonsense, blogs with opinions, links to other blogs with opinions. Trace and I have given everyone the links to go to, to verify facts multiple times. Please use them for the love of politics!!

That is all. For now.
 
Thank you Tracey because I think the facts need to be brought up so that undecided voters can make up their minds. As for factcheck actually I have been looking into them and they tend to lean to the left. I guess it's a toughy as to know what the real facts are.

Politicians lie no doubt but right now the bigest issue we face is our stock market crisis. If Obama gets elected he won't be able to do any of the things he promises. And no matter who gets elected taxes will go up.
 
:laughing: filter on duty. I wonder why the site you use to get facts is filtered lol. Yes I did mean your source for the best information. It leans to the left.
 
The site isn't filtered...the word f a c t is :laughing:

The 2 sites we gave you do not lean anywhere. They're unbiased. Please quit posting nonsense, cin. You can have an opinion. You can post that opinion. Hey, I said yesterday I welcome that! I think we all do! But don't say the unbiased f a c t checking sites lean to the left. They simply do not.
 
http://www.fa ct check.org/about/

You have to put it together and type it into your browser!

About f a c t check.org
Our Mission

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

http://liecount.com/

It's simple. We count the lies from the candidates (P/VP), their official campaigns, and their immediate surrogates from the conventions until election day to hold them accountable for their statements. We expose the lies to reveal the truth and when we see a lie, we document it so all the world can see. 1 lie, 1 point, with the current score at the top of every page.

http://liecount.com/what-is-a-lie/

What is a ‘lie’?
This site is dedicated to documenting the lies told in the pursuit of the presidency of the United States of America. There is arguably no higher office in all the world; no role that wields so much power. The candidates speaking before you, armed with legions of aides, researchers and resources, have a serious responsibility to accurately represent their positions and plans as well as the plans and positions of their opponents.

To that end, we take seriously the use of the word ‘lie’ in reference to this catalogue of deceptions. When a politician makes a point that can be clearly refuted with non-partisan sources, or even better their own words, we call that a lie. Given the claims each campaign has made regarding their own competence and ‘readiness’, we don’t believe there is room for ‘mistakes’ of speech either. So we mark any and all wrong statements as lies.

That may seem hard or unfair, but the office they are pursuing requires a diligence that supersedes the demands of casual conversation. Besides, if they cannot deliver objective truth clearly, with the benefit of preparation and study during a campaign, how could we regard each candidates statement of readiness as anything less than a lie.

Of course, if a candidate or campaign self-corrects, we’ll celebrate by documenting their truth-telling ways. The entry will stand, updated and correct and we’ll remove the tally from their count. If they don’t retract and they let the lie remain on record, then we’ll consider the point well awarded.

Lie vs. Deception


We acknowledge that a lie is just a clumsy form of deception. A skilled politician can be misleading without telling a single outright lie. A limitation of counting lies is that it doesn’t truly gauge a candidate’s honesty or integrity. Nevertheless, the telling of outright lies is controllable by the candidate, and completely unacceptable. We believe it is interesting and important to keep the candidates accountable for their words and inform voters by cataloging and counting these outright lies. An imperfect system to be sure, but certainly a valuable perspective.
 
I am just going by what I have read concerning this site. It tends to be a little left sided and to disproove some of their facts takes work. Of course anyone is entitled to believe what they wish.

There is a lot of information out there. We are in the age of the internet and it is up to us to do our research. Tracey again thank you for showing the opposite side of the issues. I hope we can get past this election soon lol
 
I have read this thread every so often to see what comes up. It's really discouraging to me to see that people won't see facts as facts. Sometimes people have such a loyalty to their party that they are unable to see the "bad" things that are being said, or the "bad" things that will potentially happen when their party is voted into office.

I hear SO OFTEN that Palin is a fantastic choice for VP because she is one of us, because she is just like we are. I won't go into the many ways I am not like her, but will say that liking someone is no reason to vote for them for president.

I go back to the past two elections. People loved GWB because he was a straight talker and was just like us, etc., etc. and look what has happened. A likeable guy? Probably. A good president? Probably not.

I also look to an election not as one person being elected--when you elect a campaign, you are in effect electing all of the people that the new president will appoint. McCain's appointment of Palin is a clear (to me) show that he may not be appointing the most qualified people for the offices that he is to appoint. She could absolutely win a popularity contest in the US over Biden, but sadly, the presidency, which she is one tiny step away from, is not a popularity contest. You have to be able to speak about the issues--not say why the other person is wrong, not say who they may have had some contact with in the past, etc., etc. I also believe that the problems of the past 8 years are not the direct fault of GWB. He has so many advisors and staff members, as well as Congress folks who helped make these awful things happen. However, it goes back to the point that McCain is being advised by these same folks. That scares me. So while I like McCain personally (and I liked him A LOT MORE before he started his true campaign) it scares me to have these same people running things the next four years.

Here is my plan for the election. We were, collectively, able to vote for McCain and Obama to be our top runningmates for the presidency. We, collectively, had no choice in Vice President--which I think we should. So, what we should do is say that we'll vote for president. Whoever gets the most votes wins, and whoever comes in second, will be VP. Best of both worlds. Obama says so many things that I agree with. He's been able to affect change in so many places already. McCain clearly has more foreign policy experience. So, either way, we win. Or lose. Right?

Anyway--I know I am not placing links in here, or adding "lol" at the end of all, but these are just my opinions. I think we should all research very carefully the ISSUES for which we are passionate, and judge that way for whom we are voting. I simply agree more with what Obama is saying and the platforms for which he stands. I like McCain. I even like Palin.


I might or might not check this again after I post, because I do hate having political disussions, but just wanted to get my opinion out there. Thanks to all who have posted factual references, and best of luck to the best campaign.
 
Here's a good one so I guess Obama is the messiah lol

Please.... Far From...

Did you see these kids. This is just creepy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3paLqu7BrxU&feature=related


for someone who doesn't want negative stuff and hate posted your links would suggest otherwise. This man and his whacked out beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with Obama.. but thanks for continuing the smear campaign that the mccain/palin camp has started. Lets not talk about the economy, or health care or how people are losing their homes.. nooooo.. lets just talk about things that make no difference to the important things going on in this country and are only about inflaming and inciting people.. shame.

I have read this thread every so often to see what comes up. It's really discouraging to me to see that people won't see facts as facts. Sometimes people have such a loyalty to their party that they are unable to see the "bad" things that are being said, or the "bad" things that will potentially happen when their party is voted into office.

I hear SO OFTEN that Palin is a fantastic choice for VP because she is one of us, because she is just like we are. I won't go into the many ways I am not like her, but will say that liking someone is no reason to vote for them for president.

I go back to the past two elections. People loved GWB because he was a straight talker and was just like us, etc., etc. and look what has happened. A likeable guy? Probably. A good president? Probably not.

I also look to an election not as one person being elected--when you elect a campaign, you are in effect electing all of the people that the new president will appoint. McCain's appointment of Palin is a clear (to me) show that he may not be appointing the most qualified people for the offices that he is to appoint. She could absolutely win a popularity contest in the US over Biden, but sadly, the presidency, which she is one tiny step away from, is not a popularity contest. You have to be able to speak about the issues--not say why the other person is wrong, not say who they may have had some contact with in the past, etc., etc. I also believe that the problems of the past 8 years are not the direct fault of GWB. He has so many advisors and staff members, as well as Congress folks who helped make these awful things happen. However, it goes back to the point that McCain is being advised by these same folks. That scares me. So while I like McCain personally (and I liked him A LOT MORE before he started his true campaign) it scares me to have these same people running things the next four years.

Here is my plan for the election. We were, collectively, able to vote for McCain and Obama to be our top runningmates for the presidency. We, collectively, had no choice in Vice President--which I think we should. So, what we should do is say that we'll vote for president. Whoever gets the most votes wins, and whoever comes in second, will be VP. Best of both worlds. Obama says so many things that I agree with. He's been able to affect change in so many places already. McCain clearly has more foreign policy experience. So, either way, we win. Or lose. Right?

Anyway--I know I am not placing links in here, or adding "lol" at the end of all, but these are just my opinions. I think we should all research very carefully the ISSUES for which we are passionate, and judge that way for whom we are voting. I simply agree more with what Obama is saying and the platforms for which he stands. I like McCain. I even like Palin.


I might or might not check this again after I post, because I do hate having political disussions, but just wanted to get my opinion out there. Thanks to all who have posted factual references, and best of luck to the best campaign.

wonderfully put.. :wave:
 
Here's a good one so I guess Obama is the messiah lol

Please.... Far From...

Another of my worries...you have a vast majority of 'people'...regular people calling Obama the new messiah, which we know he clearly is not! Why? Because people are building this election up with saving our nation...so he is the saviour~this is an automatic slap in the face to Christians! So what does the other side of the coin come up with? Obama is the antichrist. Again, clearly not!

So what are we left with? A nation divided in half again that is so caught up in the election that they can't see the truth for the multitudes of lies that the other side is putting out. Okay, I know that most people are thinking 'well if they don't know any better', but the fact is that most people don't...they will believe anything that comes on TV or that their best friend tells them. They won't check facts! So guilty as charged...this is a major pet peeve of mine during any election. If you can't win an election without lying then have you really won at all?

I go back to the fact that I think that GWB stole the last two elections...do I like him? NOT AT ALL! I will feel the same way this time because I am not sure that the same thing isn't going to happen again. I do feel that McCain is a Bush crony and that this wouldn't be a good move for the country. Again his health is a nagging factor and the fact that I do not want Palin as president ~ PERIOD.

Now to Obama...IF he could win the election and that is a big IF to me, I'm not sure that he is qualified to lead this country. Yes, he is a good speaker, but I don't think this is enough. I am still worried about his life...and thus, Biden as president. Would I feel more comfortable with Biden than Palin ~ yes, I would. Would this make me vote for Obama ~ NOPE!

So I am left with the same nagging questions that I have had this whole election. Who is best for our country? And I keep on coming up with the same answer ~ neither! I can not vote for someone that I think will do this country more harm than good and I can't help but think that this is what is going to happen here. So I am going to look at other parties candidates and if I don't find one of them that I can vote my conscience with then I will write in a candidate...

To me this is almost like a trial ~ whoever tells the best lies and stories win. I just don't think our country should be a pawn in a big chess game...
 
Here's a good one so I guess Obama is the messiah lol

Please.... Far From...

Did you see these kids. This is just creepy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3paLqu7BrxU&feature=related


for someone who doesn't want negative stuff and hate posted your links would suggest otherwise. This man and his whacked out beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with Obama.. but thanks for continuing the smear campaign that the mccain/palin camp has started. Lets not talk about the economy, or health care or how people are losing their homes.. nooooo.. lets just talk about things that make no difference to the important things going on in this country and are only about inflaming and inciting people.. shame.

I have read this thread every so often to see what comes up. It's really discouraging to me to see that people won't see facts as facts. Sometimes people have such a loyalty to their party that they are unable to see the "bad" things that are being said, or the "bad" things that will potentially happen when their party is voted into office.

I hear SO OFTEN that Palin is a fantastic choice for VP because she is one of us, because she is just like we are. I won't go into the many ways I am not like her, but will say that liking someone is no reason to vote for them for president.

I go back to the past two elections. People loved GWB because he was a straight talker and was just like us, etc., etc. and look what has happened. A likeable guy? Probably. A good president? Probably not.

I also look to an election not as one person being elected--when you elect a campaign, you are in effect electing all of the people that the new president will appoint. McCain's appointment of Palin is a clear (to me) show that he may not be appointing the most qualified people for the offices that he is to appoint. She could absolutely win a popularity contest in the US over Biden, but sadly, the presidency, which she is one tiny step away from, is not a popularity contest. You have to be able to speak about the issues--not say why the other person is wrong, not say who they may have had some contact with in the past, etc., etc. I also believe that the problems of the past 8 years are not the direct fault of GWB. He has so many advisors and staff members, as well as Congress folks who helped make these awful things happen. However, it goes back to the point that McCain is being advised by these same folks. That scares me. So while I like McCain personally (and I liked him A LOT MORE before he started his true campaign) it scares me to have these same people running things the next four years.

Here is my plan for the election. We were, collectively, able to vote for McCain and Obama to be our top runningmates for the presidency. We, collectively, had no choice in Vice President--which I think we should. So, what we should do is say that we'll vote for president. Whoever gets the most votes wins, and whoever comes in second, will be VP. Best of both worlds. Obama says so many things that I agree with. He's been able to affect change in so many places already. McCain clearly has more foreign policy experience. So, either way, we win. Or lose. Right?

Anyway--I know I am not placing links in here, or adding "lol" at the end of all, but these are just my opinions. I think we should all research very carefully the ISSUES for which we are passionate, and judge that way for whom we are voting. I simply agree more with what Obama is saying and the platforms for which he stands. I like McCain. I even like Palin.


I might or might not check this again after I post, because I do hate having political disussions, but just wanted to get my opinion out there. Thanks to all who have posted factual references, and best of luck to the best campaign.

wonderfully put.. :wave:

Tracey I figure if you post it why not right.
 
no.. I dont post hate filled garbage that has nothing to do with the candidate.. And on more than one occasion and have even said nice things about mccain.. can you say the same..
 
I have read this thread every so often to see what comes up. It's really discouraging to me to see that people won't see facts as facts. Sometimes people have such a loyalty to their party that they are unable to see the "bad" things that are being said, or the "bad" things that will potentially happen when their party is voted into office.

I hear SO OFTEN that Palin is a fantastic choice for VP because she is one of us, because she is just like we are. I won't go into the many ways I am not like her, but will say that liking someone is no reason to vote for them for president.

I go back to the past two elections. People loved GWB because he was a straight talker and was just like us, etc., etc. and look what has happened. A likeable guy? Probably. A good president? Probably not.

I also look to an election not as one person being elected--when you elect a campaign, you are in effect electing all of the people that the new president will appoint. McCain's appointment of Palin is a clear (to me) show that he may not be appointing the most qualified people for the offices that he is to appoint. She could absolutely win a popularity contest in the US over Biden, but sadly, the presidency, which she is one tiny step away from, is not a popularity contest. You have to be able to speak about the issues--not say why the other person is wrong, not say who they may have had some contact with in the past, etc., etc. I also believe that the problems of the past 8 years are not the direct fault of GWB. He has so many advisors and staff members, as well as Congress folks who helped make these awful things happen. However, it goes back to the point that McCain is being advised by these same folks. That scares me. So while I like McCain personally (and I liked him A LOT MORE before he started his true campaign) it scares me to have these same people running things the next four years.

Here is my plan for the election. We were, collectively, able to vote for McCain and Obama to be our top runningmates for the presidency. We, collectively, had no choice in Vice President--which I think we should. So, what we should do is say that we'll vote for president. Whoever gets the most votes wins, and whoever comes in second, will be VP. Best of both worlds. Obama says so many things that I agree with. He's been able to affect change in so many places already. McCain clearly has more foreign policy experience. So, either way, we win. Or lose. Right?

Anyway--I know I am not placing links in here, or adding "lol" at the end of all, but these are just my opinions. I think we should all research very carefully the ISSUES for which we are passionate, and judge that way for whom we are voting. I simply agree more with what Obama is saying and the platforms for which he stands. I like McCain. I even like Palin.


I might or might not check this again after I post, because I do hate having political disussions, but just wanted to get my opinion out there. Thanks to all who have posted factual references, and best of luck to the best campaign.

I'd like to start by thanking you for adding to this discussion. I can tell your post was thought out well, as you spoke from your heart. Your post was a breath of fresh air and highly appreciated. This thread has been going downhill the last couple of days and certainly not going in the direction I was hoping it would go in. I love that you shared in it despite that and please feel free to continue sharing! I want everyone who has an opinion or belief to share in it as well. Lisa, I agree with so much that you've posted! And even if I didn't it wouldn't even matter. I just love seeing what everyone thinks. I love someone opening up my eyes to a new idea or thought...a different way of thinking about one thing or another. Like I said, please feel free to continue to add whatever it is that you'd like!!

Tammy, I agree with you on so many different things! I worry about the same exact things you worry about. Obama is a GREAT speaker and has some GREAT ideas on what he'd like to change in this country. But is it enough? I don't know. What I do know is McCain is not my man for president. Not only do I not like his ideas and agree with most of what he believes is best for this country I don't not like him as a person. But I've said that before and posted why so I'll leave it at that.

Biden, I don't feel I know him well enough to say whether or not I'd think he'd be a good president. Some ideas I agree with and some I do not. But then I look at the alternative...Palin. Not only do I not agree with her on any of the issues but I don't like her as a person either. As I said above, I've clearly expressed why and I'll leave it at that. Don't want to sound like a broken record.
 
When I first joined this site political threads were discouraged and it's apparent why. Since all hell breaks loose I will go ahead and say it's probably a good idea to not discuss politics.
 
fact check.org.... sliming Obama.. http://www.fact check.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html since the link wont work with c&p I will copy and past the article.

Sliming Obama
January 10, 2008
Dueling chain e-mails claim he's a radical Muslim or a 'racist' Christian. Both can't be right. We find both are false.
Summary
If these two nasty e-mail messages are any indication, the 2008 presidential campaign is becoming a very dirty one.

One claims that Obama is "certainly a racist" by virtue of belonging to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, which it says "will accept only black parishoners" and espouses a commitment to Africa. Actually, a white theology professor says he's been "welcomed enthusiastically" at the church, as have other non-blacks.

Another e-mail claims that Obama "is a Muslim," attended a "Wahabi" school in Indonesia, took his Senate oath on the Koran, refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and is part of an Islamic plot to take over the U.S. Each of these statements is false.

These false appeals to bigotry and fear remind us of the infamous whispering campaign of eight years ago, when anonymous messages just before the South Carolina primary falsely accused Republican candidate John McCain of fathering an illegitimate child by a black woman.
Analysis
We turn first to the most recent of these Internet whispering campaigns: a widely forwarded e-mail that says Barack Obama’s church, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, is anti-American, will only accept black parishioners and tilts toward Africa at the expense of the United States. The e-mail claims Obama is therefore "certainly a racist" and "desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa."

We've had scores of queries about the accuracy of this one. It's bunk. For one thing, the church welcomes whites, according to a University of Chicago professor of divinity who says he has attended. And while its controversial pastor is a fiery advocate for blacks and liberal causes and a fierce critic of anti-black discrimination, we've seen no evidence that he preaches hatred of or discrimination against whites.

False E-Mail Sent to FactCheck.org Readers
Received Dec. 31, 2007

Subject: Obama's church

Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It's the Trinity Church of Christ. I found this interesting.

Obama's church:
Please read and go to this church's web site and read what is written there. It is very alarming.

Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their web site, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned. Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church..._ B-L-A-C-K!!!_ Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing. Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa!

I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers. This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all of our family & friends. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary.
Click on the link below:
This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to: www.tucc.org/about.htm

The first clue that this e-mail is the product of careless ignorance is that it claims that "Obama's middle name is Mohammed," which is false. His middle name is Hussein.

As for the accusations against his church, this e-mail is not the first place they have come up. Nearly a year ago conservative blogger Erik Rush called the church "cultish" and "separatist" in a Feb. 2007 interview on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" and questioned whether its parishioners could consider themselves Americans or Christians.

Here are the facts:

It is true that Trinity describes itself as "a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian" and which "does not apologize for its African roots." The church’s Web site specifies a commitment to Africa and to "historical education of African people in diaspora." The congregation is overwhelmingly black; few if any whites can be seen in the photographs and videos of the congregation posted on the church's Web site. But none of that makes the church "racist" or anti-American.


Prof. Martin E. Marty
And in fact, a professor of theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School, Martin E. Marty, wrote this in April 2007, rebutting Rush’s claims on Fox News:

Prof. Marty: To those in range of Chicago TV I'd recommend a watching of Trinity's Sunday services, and challenge you to find anything "cultic" or "sectarian" about them. More important, for Trinity, being "unashamedly black" does not mean being "anti-white." My wife and I on occasion attend, and, like all other non-blacks, are enthusiastically welcomed.

Regarding this renewed attack on Trinity, Prof. Marty told FactCheck, "That kind of e-mail is vicious and lying, and makes my blood boil. ... Many civic officials, public school teachers, etc. are members at Trinity; [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright has been on TV with his services for years, and no one found them racist – it's smear politics."

Trinity would not comment to us for this article. Rev. Wright, however, appeared on Fox's "Hannity and Colmes" on March 2, 2007, and responded at length to the claim made by Rush. He said in part:

Alan Colmes: I want the public to understand where your church is coming from, because you're being accused of being a black separatist church, and thus Obama is being accused by default of being a black separatist. Can you straighten that out for us, please?

Wright: OK. The African-centered point of view does not assume superiority, nor does it assume separatism. It assumes Africans speaking for themselves as subjects in history, not objects in history.

There's no question that Wright has been a controversial figure, a passionate advocate for black self-help and to some, a radical. Jason Byassee, in a lengthy article on the church published in Christian Century magazine, said, "There is no denying ... that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity." He added, "Conservatives may find the Africentric church too political, and liberals may squirm over its revivalist emotion." But he praised the church's success in growing to more than 8,000 members, making this black congregation the largest single church in a predominately white United Church of Christ denomination, saying "the black church continues to makes converts in unlikely places, reflecting a God who makes a way where there is no way."

Wherever we looked we found ample evidence that Obama's church is pro-black, but we found none to support a claim that it is anti-white. Calling it "racist" is, in our judgment, a falsehood.

The Manchurian Islamic Candidate?

Readers have also asked us about an oft-forwarded e-mail falsely claiming that Obama is a Muslim and suggesting that he is part of an Islamic plot to take over the U.S. "from the inside out" with "one of their own." This screed reads like the outline of a bad remake of the 1962 movie The Manchurian Candidate, in which Frank Sinatra unravels a Communist plot to make "one of their own" the president.

There is little excuse for those who continue to circulate this one. The most audacious falsehood it contains (of several) is a claim near the top: "We checked this out on 'snopes.com'. It is factual. Check for yourself." Anyone who actually does that would quickly find that Snopes.com, the respected debunker of urban myths, judges the message to be "false." And yet we continue to receive examples sent to our readers by others who either don't take the time to check, or who don't care that they are repeating false and damaging statements.

False E-Mail Sent to FactCheck.org Readers
Received January 6, 2008

Who is Barack Obama?

Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice.

If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it.

We checked this out on "snopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself.

Who is Barack Obama?

Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita, Kansas.

Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. Hi s father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.?
When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocate to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim.
He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that
that he is not a radical.

Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.

Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.

Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.
The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?...... NOT ME!!!

This claim, and others similar to it, originated with a Jan. 2007 Insight Magazine article – a publication owned by News World Communications, which also owns the conservative Washington Times newspaper:

Insight: Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

This article, citing anonymous sources, claimed that "Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia." But this allegation was quickly shown to be false. Days after the article appeared, CNN sent reporter John Vause to Jakarta, Indonesia, to visit the school. He reported:

CNN: I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. … I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that.

CNN interviewed the school's deputy headmaster, Hardi Priyono, who said: "This is a public school. We don't focus on religion."
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Alex Wong/Getty Images


That same day, Obama’s Senate office issued a press release saying the claims in the magazine story were false and citing CNN and other reports. Subsequent news stories in The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune found no merit in the madrassa claim. Obama’s childhood in Indonesia, a country with the world’s largest Muslim population, is not something he has attempted to hide. He dedicates pages in his best-selling book "Dreams from My Father" to his life overseas.

This e-mail cobbles together some other false claims that have been circulating for months.

Swore on Koran? The e-mail says "when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran" – bunk yet again. Obama did not place his hand on the Koran when he was sworn into the U.S. Senate. This claim confuses Obama with the first and only Muslim member of Congress, Democratic House member Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Obama was sworn in using his own Bible, as widely reported in newspaper accounts and pictured above. That's his wife holding the Bible with Vice President Dick Cheney swearing him in. (Under the Constitution, the vice president serves as president of the Senate.)

Pledge of Allegiance? The slime doesn’t stop there. The e-mail also claims Obama "will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag" and that "while others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches." These e-mails usually come with this photo, seen here as it appears on Time.com's Web site:

Time.com Photograph


The photograph was taken during a "steak-fry" for Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa on Sept. 16, 2007. What is pictured is the singing of the national anthem, not a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. For proof, see this video taken by ABC News during the event.

And for proof that Obama has no problem reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, check this video of C-SPAN’s recording of the Senate’s morning business, with Obama presiding, on June 21, 2007. Or this one from Feb. 1, 2007.

A point not raised in this e-mail: Some have complained that Obama should have placed his hand over his heart during the singing of the anthem, as pictured in the Time photo. It is true that the U.S. Code states that "all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart." But the word "should" rather than "shall" makes that a recommendation and not a legal requirement. To confirm, we spoke with Anne Garside, director of communication for the Maryland Historical Society – home of the original manuscript of "The Star-Spangled Banner," and asked if anyone could be punished for not placing their hands over their hearts during the national anthem. She quickly replied, "Oh, of course not," adding that "there is no obligation to put your hand over your heart." Garside told us she has been asked numerous times about this rumor and finds the controversy to have "gotten a little bit ridiculous."

The "Black Baby" smear

Scurrilous smears like those contained in these two e-mails can have a damaging effect. Before the South Carolina primary in 2000, for example, phone calls were made to voters in which the callers claimed to be taking a poll, asking: "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" McCain had done no such thing. He and his wife had adopted their daughter Bridget, who has dark skin, as a baby from Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh. A professor at Bob Jones University also had sent an e-mail message telling South Carolinians that McCain had “chosen to sire children without marriage,” which wasn't true. McCain lost the 2000 primary, and the Republican nomination, to George W. Bush.

Such attacks usually can be disproved with less effort than it takes to forward them to others. The statement that Snopes endorsed the false claim that Obama is a Muslim radical is an example. So we find it disappointing that they continue to circulate. But we expect to see more of them as the election year wears on, and we'll do our best to expose them when readers bring them to our attention.

–by Jess Henig and Emi Kolawole

Correction, Jan. 11: In our original article, we inadvertently dropped the word "United" from one reference to Obama's church. It is the United Church of Christ, which is different from the Church of Christ.
 
When I first joined this site political threads were discouraged and it's apparent why. Since all hell breaks loose I will go ahead and say it's probably a good idea to not discuss politics.

No way cin. You choose to come in here time and time again. That's your right. And it's ours as well. No one wants to argue with you. All hell isn't breaking loose. You want to perpetuate an argument because you want the thread closed. I am trying to keep up a healthy discussion/debate going. Please help me do that. If it upsets you to come into this thread maybe take some time and then come back in when you've calmed down. I do it, cin. It helps. It really does.
 
Back
Top