Uhhh, . . . Bobby Jindal is from Baton Rouge. :insane: Oh, wait! You're making a non-sequitor leap from Jindal to Obama. :hihi: Let's see, "the writer of a socialist, racially charged autobiography". I've read Obama's book and you don't know what you are talking about. Cite us some racist and socialist passages. Ok, now, "a known associate of a former terrorist". Have you been under a rock in the past year? This lame old campaign mud has long been discredited. He knew another Chicago politician who was once a radical when Obama was a child. How exactly is Obama associated with terrorism? He ain't. I was in the Boy Scouts with a guy who is now in Angola for a double ax murder. Another guy I know here at LSU spent 3 years in a Texas Penitentiary in the 70's for possession of two bags of marijuana. You would describe me as "a known associate of heinous felons", no doubt? Since neither of your allegations are true, then Obama must not be a ideologue. How does writing a book and knowing a politician make him an ideologue anyway? Got some examples of his impractical ideals and blindly partisan adherence to an ideology? idealogue noun 1 : an impractical idealist 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology I have no doubt that you think you are right on every issue. We all have no doubt that we are right, either. :grin:
That isn't accurate. I prefer moderate candidates, but there is no moderate party. I vote for who I think is the best and most effective candidate, hopefully center-leaning. I voted for Reagan over Mondale, although both were center-leaning, because Reagan was more effective. Gimme a break. He was the most moderate of all the primary candidates except for Hillary and Lieberman and he was the most moderate of the two candidates that we got to vote for. There were no centrist candidates. This is america, chief--one citizen = one vote. It matters not whether they are rural or urban. And the notion that only conservatives earn wealth, have families, and contribute to the economy is simply preposterous. You can't document that absurd claim.
i wouldnt be surprised if more welfare takers voted GOP as which voters make more $, i'd say GOP. too many people looking out for themselves. because if you help someone, they become the devil.
what i understand to be true---majority of welfare recipients are white and most whites vote GOP. i know this does not equal most welfare recipients vote GOP but i would make me not surprised if it were true. prove me wrong.
is should've asked wiki. Family Income Size Obama McCain Other Less than $15,000 6% 73% 25% 2% $15,000–$29,999 12% 60% 37% 3% $30,000-$49,999 19% 55% 43% 2% $50,000-$74,999 21% 48% 49% 3% $75,000-$99,999 15% 51% 48% 1% $100,000-$149,999 14% 48% 51% 1% $150,000-$199,999 6% 48% 50% 2% Greater than $200,000 6% 52% 46% 2% so this isnt welfare but the vast majority of the poorest voted for O. now you have to factor in that he won the overall popular by a decent amount too, but still a big difference. the biggest caveat is that that demographic is only 6% of the voters---if you swapped the #s for this group for the candidates, mccain would still have lost. what is also interesting is that O won the votes of the largest wage earners--by a healthy margin. so lets look at the original statement in question. "in no way represent the majority of America's wealth earners". subtract out the people making under 30k. O wins handily. take out all under 50k, O wins.
It depends. Did they host your campaign kick off party? The Obama-Ayers Top Ten: Highlights of the 20 year Obama-Ayers Connection : NO QUARTER
What a laugh. :lol::lol::lol: I ask again . . . where is any connection to terrorism? Let's address the points listed in this silly blog. 1. Obama and Ayers both were on the board of The Woods Fund of Chicago, a grantmaking foundation whose goal is to increase opportunities for less-advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area. So What? Where is the terrorism here? 2. Ayers helped organize the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools. "Barack Obama worked on school reform efforts for the DCP at that time and the DCP was a member of the ABC". So what? Where is the terrorism here? 3. Ayer's wife worked for the law firm Sidley and Austin in 1987 and 1988. Obama worked for the same firm in 1989. So what ? Where is even a connection here? 4. Obama worked for the Judson Miner law firm in Chicago after leaving Harvard Law. Miner had been classmates with Ayers wife in 1967. Give me a freaking break! 5. Ayers received a grant from the Annenberg Foundation in 1993. Obama was named Chairman of the Annenberg Foundation in 1995. Are we feeling the outrage yet? 6. Ayers hosted a meet-the-candidate party at his home in 1995. So what? Where is the terrorism here? 7. Ayers published a book in 1997 and Michelle Obama, working at the University of Chicago, organized a panel discussion there in late 1997 to discuss Ayers’ book. So what? Where is the terrorism here? 8. Now this is the really ridiculous connection, here goes . . . Ayers endorses a 2006 idea from the president of the American Education Research Association. Professor Linda Darling-Hamilton also endorses it. She was named as an education advisor to the Obama campaign in 2007. Are you serious? Is this what you call "associating with known terrorists". :insane: 9. The head of the Small Schools Workshop project in 1991 was given a $175,000 grant by the Annenberg Foundation while Obama and Ayers were both members. So What? 10. Ayers has a friend who blogged on the Obama website. So what?
