Obama is a Uniter, not a Divider…not Quite
by Big Dog on Jun 23, 2008 at 22:53 Political
One of John McCain’s advisers made the comment that another terrorist attack on the United States would be helpful to the Republican Party. While this is completely true it is also tasteless and in bad form. Having said that, I don’t think the guy, Charlie Black, meant that he wanted to see one so Republicans could reap a benefit. I can’t speak for him but any person who wishes we get attackd again should be sent to Gitmo, oh wait, the SCOTUS said we had to release people from there. I never wish for us to get attacked but if we do I hope it is in an area where people are anti war and protest our troops, like say Berkeley.
After the comment was made a spokesperson for Barry O Bam Bam chimed in:
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The fact that John McCain’s top adviser says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a ‘big advantage’ for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change. Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al-Qaida.” My Way News
Barry will turn the page on divisive politics. Let’s see, Barry accused the Republican Party of being racists who will launch racist attacks on him, his people claimed that people in West Virginia did not vote for him because they are racists, he did not allow Muslim women with scarves in a photo of him, and he was dismissive of Hillary Clinton’s supporters. Add to that his endless line of anti American associates (you can find them under the bus) and it is hard to see exactly how he is turning a page on divisive politics. Hopey can talk a real good game (if he has a teleprompter) but he is not new, he is not fresh and he is not some revolutionary figure. He is a political hack who has schemed for his next office as soon as he was elected. He is inexperienced and offers a resume so short it could be a fortune cookie (you have hope and change, lucky numbers 2008).
I am absolutely certain that Charlie Black does not want America to be attacked again even though he is correct that such an attack would shine a lot of light on the inadequacy of the Democrats with regard to national security. However, thanks to the job that George Bush has done here at home and our troops have done overseas, we have not been attacked and it is unlikely we will during the rest of his term. Muslims all over the world are endorsing Barry O Bam Bam and they want a man they consider a brother to be elected. They have to know another attack here would all but wipe that chance out.
No, we don’t have to worry about America being attacked in the short term, but if next year we are using the words “President Obama”, we will need to worry and worry a lot.
Tags: attacks, charlie black, devisive, Obama, Terrorism
I am not sure we will ever have to worry about a terrorist attack here again if Obama is elected…They wouldn’t risk damaging their brothers rep.
I am sure that he has already told Bin Laden over the phone to lay low until Nov. if he wins he’s pardon him, if he loses attack and we will blame the white guy.
Seriously the “attack” statement was in poor taste and I am not sure that it would even hurt Obama’s chances, they would blame Bush and McCain and start the “Inside job” no matter what occurred.
Roberts last blog post..The Dutch can see the future, AFTER OBAMA.
In a pigs eye he is a uniter. 🙂
Bosuns last blog post..Does Obama Distort the Bible?
Hi big dog,
Wishing for another attack on America is more common among wingnuts (let alone lobbyists for various foreign dictators who run the Republican nominees campaign) are quiet common. From your superstitions friend Kat in a post I responded to at my blog a while back:
“I will concede that I frequently wonder whether another attack on American soil is the only thing which will remove liberal craniums out of anal orifices. Considering that we’re having this discussion only six short years after 9-11, and after almost 10,000 terrorist attacks around the world, I doubt it.”
She thinks that without another attack, Americans won’t roll over and let the Adminsitration take the rest of our freedoms. The only difference between Kat and McCain’s head lobbyist is that the lobbyist says it would help Republicans. Kat thinks it would help all of America.
That’s why I always compare you guys to bin Laden.
[…] Big Dog posts, Big Dog lies… […]
Meathead has a man crush on me.
The ruling by the SCOTUS means more people will have to be released. If a soldier is killed by a released detainee we should seriously consider action against the justices who allowed it.
Why don’t we call them prisoners of war? Then they would not be allowed to have a trial.
Better yet Big doggie, why not announce that terrorists killed will be buried with a pound of bacon sprinkled about their corpse?
Since when does habeas corpus apply to non citizens who are not in our country. Since the government will not be able to bring some of them to court or will not be able to present evidence because of the classification some of these people will have to be released. The SCOTUS did not order their release but as a result of the ruling some of them will have to be released.
Meathead still has a man crush on me. He wants me to come visit his site and get into his circle jerk. Not going to happen. It irritates him immensely when people ignore him or fail to visit his site. He thinks he is a big man and it is quite easy for him to be tough over the Internet. I have seen his picture. He is a little troll who would be real easy to beat like a tied yard dog.
I cannot imagine he has a wife but if he does she is either a saint or a retard because only one of those two could put up with him. Though I know he had a wife at one time because he has kids, one lives in California, San Diego I think.
In case anyone is wondering Meathead is attacking me at his site. I just write here because I will not go to the septic tank he calls a site.
I read the Supreme Court ruling as well as the dissenting opinion, I agree with them and not the liberals who think we should use other country’s laws to make rulings.
Many have been released without Habeas Corpus, the ruling deals with those being held without charge (not ones that have been mitigated and either released or held because no one will take them). The ruling means they have to be given the opportunity to address charges against them, the meaning of habeas corpus, a body must be brought before the court so the court may determine if the person is being held lawfully.
Since some have been released without HC it would stand to reason that the tribunal determined they could leave. There are others who can leave but have no place to go (screw them, release them to their home countries and let them deal with it) and then there are those who have yet to appear. The SCOTUS said they must be brought to court to determine if they are being lawfully held.
I think the legal experts who have written about this know more about it than Meathead (or me) and they have discussed these very things, not the ACLU version of appeasement and civil liberty (which non citizens do not have). Anything CIVIL pertains to CITIZENS of a country. People who are not citizens and who are not here in some legal capacity have no civil rights or liberties.
Meathead has a man crush on me. He keeps coming here and reading my stuff and writing about it.
He does this because his site is a reaction to the work of others. He is unable to write original content. He probably took the ideas for his books from others.
Just remember, Meathead calls me a liar but he writes fiction for a living. He is a science FICTION writer. I also heard he is the product of an incestuous relationship. His father and mother are brother and sister.
Meathead, get a life. LOSER
I read the Supreme Court ruling as well as the dissenting opinion, I agree with them and not the liberals who think we should use other country’s laws to make rulings.
Notice that this sentence DOES NOT state they used foreign law in this decision. The liberal minority views that method as appropriate. I give less credence to them because of it with regard to many cases.
The definition of Civil: [emphasis mine]
1 a: of or relating to citizens b: of or relating to the state or its citizenry
Therefore civil anything applies to citizens. The definition spells it out, no case law is required to figure that out.
Meathead is incapable of actually seeing anything. He is blinded by hatred (and self gratification) and he continually cherry picks or follows illogical paths. He is a cretin who writes fiction, all his work is fiction.