Obama the Muslim... Confirmed!

[fossten]

Sure, when you take what he says out of context and parse it.

So, is this taken out of context? (note: HotAir has a link to the actual audio, so you cannot claim he didn't say it.)

Who’s playing the race card?

Update: Audio added

posted at 11:11 am on June 21, 2008

by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama told supporters in Jacksonville that Republicans would launch racist attacks against him in the upcoming election. Without noting a single supporting piece of evidence, Obama cast any opposition to him as bigotry, and in doing so, recalled just a touch of Joe McCarthy’s tactics:

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

The ironic part of this argument is that it ignores the tactics his fellow Democrats used in the primary, while also overlooking John McCain’s efforts to distance himself from the same tactics. It was, after all, staffers on the Hillary Clinton campaign that sent the photo of Obama in African garb to the Drudge Report. It was Bill Clinton who suggested that Obama’s victory in South Carolina was no more significant than Jesse Jackson’s in 1988. It was Hillary who explicitly went after the white, working-class vote in the later primaries that bruised Obama so badly.

John McCain, meanwhile, was a lot more outspoken in criticizing his own supporters for relying on crypto-ethnic references. He immediately and publicly disowned, without any prompting, Bill Cunningham in Ohio after the radio host enphasized Obama’s middle name (Hussein) in his introductory remarks. McCain also fired one staffer for e-mailing a Jeremiah Wright video after explicitly saying that his campaign would have no comment on Wright or Trinity United. Meanwhile, Hillary could only offer a tepid “as far as I know” repudiation of the rumor that Obama is/was a Muslim.

Just as with his untrue statements on Republican financing and 527s, Obama seems content to issue lies and smears in order to inflame the electorate. There is more than a little hint of McCarthyism in this tactic. Joe McCarthy waved pieces of paper around and claimed to have lists of Communists in government that he never substantiated. Obama likes to accuse Republicans of racism without any proof, either, while apparently discounting the real race-card playing in his own party.

If he has proof that the Republican Party and/or John McCain plan racist attacks on him, let him show it. If he doesn’t, then Obama is guilty of his own racial pandering and should apologize.


http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/21/whos-playing-the-race-card/

*owned*

 

[MonsterMark]

Obama: “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

LOL.

I think the media has done a pretty good job of telling us he is BLACK!

What they haven't done is tell us he is more Arab than Black. We'll never hear that though.

 

[squidnomore]

Man this thread has run the gambit.

If you don't want to vote for the guy, don't. There's plenty wrong with either candidate. Choose a reason or stick with racism, either way.

Who gives a crap what religion either of them are? Ever hear about separation of church and state? The money says "In God We Trust" but we make sure to ask for ID most of the time.

Arab; where was that Christ guy born? Yeah, shouldn't trust them Arabs...

As long as the polling booth has the Republican and Democratic party buttons on them, the term intelligent voter is an oxymoron. Plenty of them would elect Osama if he was on the right party ticket.

 

[fossten]

Arab; where was that Christ guy born? Yeah, shouldn't trust them Arabs...

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Jesus Christ is a Jew. And he was born in Bethlehem.

Hey, I know! Try reading the Bible next time.

 

[Calabrio]

 

[fossten]

^^^^Man, that's funneh...

 

[shagdrum]

Who gives a crap what religion either of them are? Ever hear about separation of church and state? The money says "In God We Trust" but we make sure to ask for ID most of the time.

There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution or any founding documents.

What is the relevance of this point anyway?

Because of the 1st amendment, people shouldn't look at a candidates religious background when deciding who to vote for?

That is absurd! Religious background can say a lot about a person, and that is very relevant to this election.

Considering the international scene today, and terrorism specifically, it is hardly unthinkable that potential ties to the religion that is the driving force of most terrorism in the world today would be an issue in the campaign for the presidency of the country that is the target of that terrorism.

Arab; where was that Christ guy born? Yeah, shouldn't trust them Arabs...

Again, relevance?

As long as the polling booth has the Republican and Democratic party buttons on them, the term intelligent voter is an oxymoron.

That makes sense, as non sequiturs always do.

Plenty of them would elect Osama if he was on the right party ticket.

And how does this tie into the previous line, logically? It hardly says anything about the intelligence of the voters in question.

Being on a certain party ticket says a lot about a candidate; including what their overall political, social, economic and even moral philosophy tends to be, among other things. To not take that into consideration, and give it a lot of weight would be foolish.

"Intelligent voter" may be an oxymoron in your case, but most of us in this area of the forum are actually rather well informed and intelligent.

Any more mindless rhetoric and mischaracterization you have to offer this thread? Rest assured that it will be thoroughly vetted for the substance-lacking distortion that it truly is.

 

[Calabrio]

^^^^Man, that's funneh...

I can't stomach another Obama debate. I figure I'll just save my energy until the fall..... but I'll pull out the photoshop hammer for a quick smile.....

 

[MonsterMark]

but I'll pull out the photoshop hammer for a quick smile.....

Osama Obama

 

[squidnomore]

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Jesus Christ is a Jew. And he was born in Bethlehem.

Hey, I know! Try reading the Bible next time.

You can't figure out the difference between religion and geographical area, and you think I have ignorance?

No wonder you can't understand things.

 

[squidnomore]

Considering the international scene today, and terrorism specifically, it is hardly unthinkable that potential ties to the religion that is the driving force of most terrorism in the world today would be an issue in the campaign for the presidency of the country that is the target of that terrorism.

In essence you're stating all Muslims are terrorists, therefore can't be trusted. I see. Which is why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is why we're working side by side with them. Can't trust them. Not a bit. Muslim = evil. Now who did the Oklahoma City bombing again? Guess we can't trust white guys either. Goodbye McCain.


As for "intelligent voter", you say the party makes the individual. Our history is full of people of both parties being charged with crimes. The individual should be the concern, not the party ticket. However, people will blindly follow the party instead of the merits, or lack thereof, of the candidate. And those "well informed and intelligent" people pull the lever for party, not for country. Because, after all, it's the "other" party that is responsible for the ills of the nation.

 

[fossten]

Considering the international scene today, and terrorism specifically, it is hardly unthinkable that potential ties to the religion that is the driving force of most terrorism in the world today would be an issue in the campaign for the presidency of the country that is the target of that terrorism.

In essence you're stating all Muslims are terrorists, therefore can't be trusted. I see. Which is why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is why we're working side by side with them. Can't trust them. Not a bit. Muslim = evil. Now who did the Oklahoma City bombing again? Guess we can't trust white guys either. Goodbye McCain.

Sorry, wrong. There's a big difference between working with muslims to stop terrorism and electing a muslim to the Presidency. That's a flawed argument.

And apparently in addition to not knowing the first thing about the Bible, you are equally ignorant of the Koran. Looks like you have a lot of reading to do. I won't hold my breath. Just keep making a fool out of yourself here, it's amusing.

 

[fossten]

You can't figure out the difference between religion and geographical area, and you think I have ignorance?

No wonder you can't understand things.

You implied Christ is an Arab, plain and simple. That's a false claim that's easy to disprove, and it's so absurd that even a nine year old child knows it's baloney. I'm sorry, I guess I just didn't get the nuance of your claim.

Christ was a Jew both racially and geographically. He was Arab in no way whatsoever.

 

[shagdrum]

In essence you're stating all Muslims are terrorists, therefore can't be trusted. I see. Which is why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is why we're working side by side with them. Can't trust them. Not a bit. Muslim = evil. Now who did the Oklahoma City bombing again? Guess we can't trust white guys either. Goodbye McCain.

Setting up straw man argument I see. I never said (or implied) that all Muslims are terrorists. You are intentionally exaggerating my claims here. Then showing red herrings that have nothing to do with the point I raised (the "working side by side with muslims thing" and the Oklahoma City thing, specifically).

As for "intelligent voter", you say the party makes the individual.

Another intentional set up of a straw man mischaracterization. I never came close to saying "the party makes the individual". What I said was:

Being on a certain party ticket says a lot about a candidate; including what their overall political, social, economic and even moral philosophy tends to be, among other things. To not take that into consideration, and give it a lot of weight would be foolish.​

That is hardly the same as saying that "the party makes the individual".

You are once again showing your complete lack of intellectual integrity here.

 

[MonsterMark]

Poor Squid.

You guys are double teaming him.

Obama brought up his race. Obama brought up his race. Obama brought up his wife. All fair game.

 

[fossten]

Heh. Better bring ya 'A' game or don't come at all.

Seriously, Shag is the man. I'm just sorta leaning on him. He's Hall and I'm Oates.

 

[TheDude]

You implied Christ is an Arab, plain and simple. That's a false claim that's easy to disprove, and it's so absurd that even a nine year old child knows it's baloney. I'm sorry, I guess I just didn't get the nuance of your claim.

Christ was a Jew both racially and geographically. He was Arab in no way whatsoever.

Jews Are The Genetic Brothers Of Palestinians, Syrians, And Lebanese

ScienceDaily (May 9, 2000) — If a common heritage conferred peace, then perhaps the long history of conflict in the Middle East would have been resolved years ago. For, according to a new scientific study, Jews are the genetic brothers of Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, and they all share a common genetic lineage that stretches back thousands of years. -END SNIP

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

 

[fossten]

Jews Are The Genetic Brothers Of Palestinians, Syrians, And Lebanese

ScienceDaily (May 9, 2000) — If a common heritage conferred peace, then perhaps the long history of conflict in the Middle East would have been resolved years ago. For, according to a new scientific study, Jews are the genetic brothers of Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, and they all share a common genetic lineage that stretches back thousands of years. -END SNIP

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

What you quote is not false, however it in NO WAY WHATSOEVER proves that Christ is Arab. Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, and Jews are descendants of Isaac. Plain and simple.

I award you no points, but you are welcome to try again.

 

[TheDude]

Never said Christ was an Arab, just showing that Jews and Arabs are related and at one point were the same, especially going back 2000+ years. The only thing that separated the two were territorial borders and a difference of religious views it seems, though Arabs weren't Muslims then.

Of note, there are Arabs who are Jewish.

 

[fossten]

Never said Christ was an Arab, just showing that Jews and Arabs are related and at one point were the same, especially going back 2000+ years. The only thing that separated the two were territorial borders and a difference of religious views it seems, though Arabs weren't Muslims then.

Of note, there are Arabs who are Jewish.

You appeared to be attempting to support Squid's position. But the conflict goes back much farther than 2,000 years. It's more like 4,000.

 

[squidnomore]

Sorry, wrong. There's a big difference between working with muslims to stop terrorism and electing a muslim to the Presidency. That's a flawed argument.

And apparently in addition to not knowing the first thing about the Bible, you are equally ignorant of the Koran. Looks like you have a lot of reading to do. I won't hold my breath. Just keep making a fool out of yourself here, it's amusing.

No, it's not. If muslims be evil, as he stated, working with evil isn't smart. They should just be eliminated. His logic is flawed, as is yours typically.

1st thing about the bible? Um, sparky, he wasn't Jewish. Once again, you fail.

 

[squidnomore]

Setting up straw man argument I see. I never said (or implied) that all Muslims are terrorists. You are intentionally exaggerating my claims here. Then showing red herrings that have nothing to do with the point I raised (the "working side by side with muslims thing" and the Oklahoma City thing, specifically).



Another intentional set up of a straw man mischaracterization. I never came close to saying "the party makes the individual". What I said was:

Being on a certain party ticket says a lot about a candidate; including what their overall political, social, economic and even moral philosophy tends to be, among other things. To not take that into consideration, and give it a lot of weight would be foolish.​

That is hardly the same as saying that "the party makes the individual".

You are once again showing your complete lack of intellectual integrity here.

that potential ties to the religion that is the driving force of most terrorism in the world today Your statement. Which part of that didn't you mean/understand? Or was most terrorism in the world today implied to be only 51%? No, I got it right.

Dance around it all you want. It is what you said.

 

[shagdrum]

that potential ties to the religion that is the driving force of most terrorism in the world today Your statement. Which part of that didn't you mean/understand? Or was most terrorism in the world today implied to be only 51%? No, I got it right.

Dance around it all you want. It is what you said.

There is no dancing around here, you are blatantly spinning and jumping to conclusions.

The Muslim religion is the driving force behind most terrorism in the world today. That hardly means that all Muslims are terrorists (which you are taking it to mean).

An assumed non sequitur on your part.

 

[squidnomore]

There is no dancing around here, you are blatantly spinning and jumping to conclusions.

The Muslim religion is the driving force behind most terrorism in the world today. That hardly means that all Muslims are terrorists (which you are taking it to mean).

An assumed non sequitur on your part.

You really need to find some new buzz words. Pick up a Word Power dictionary.

The Muslim religion isn't the driving force. What percentage of the world Muslims are committing terrorist actions?

The power seeking people that lead terrorists is the driving force. Where do they come from? Some are from Muslim nations. How do they excuse their actions? God told them to do it.

It's not because they are Muslim that they are terrorists. It's economics for the most part, or a lack of anything else to obtain.

While you run around chicken little afraid of the muslims, ask yourself this question; how many American citizens died at the hands of Muslims in the last 10 years vs. died at the hands of Americans or those who would call themselves Christians?

You drew the link of Osama/Muslim/Terrorism. Don't hurt yourself backpedaling.

 

[shagdrum]

The Muslim religion isn't the driving force. What percentage of the world Muslims are committing terrorist actions?

There's putting the cart before the horse...

The percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is irrelevant to validating or disproving my claim. it only serves to confuse the issue; a red herring.

The relevant figure would be the opposite; what percentage of international terrorists are Muslims.

The power seeking people that lead terrorists is the driving force. Where do they come from? Some are from Muslim nations. How do they excuse their actions? God told them to do it.

Another red herring; more obfuscation.

It's not because they are Muslim that they are terrorists. It's economics for the most part, or a lack of anything else to obtain.

There is a huge leap, even from the premise you set out. Because Islam isn't the driving force of terrorism, economic desperation is the reasons? Another non sequitur...

The only way you could make that connection of Middle Eastern terrorism being due to economic desperation is through some Marxist (flawed and wrong) assumptions. I think I may have just uncovered the true root of your lack of intellectual integrity!

While you run around chicken little afraid of the muslims, ask yourself this question; how many American citizens died at the hands of Muslims in the last 10 years vs. died at the hands of Americans or those who would call themselves Christians?

There is a leading question. "American's or those who would call themselves Christians"?! With the way that question is worded, you can claim almost anyone in a democracy is a Christian, even possibly the Jewish population.

You could very easily have worded the question as "how many have died at the hands of Muslims vs. How many have died at the hands of Christians", but I am sure you know that the answer would have been that more have died at the hands of Muslims.

Either way, this point is irrelevant to this discussion; yet another red herring to distract from the actual debate here.