L.A. Times Khalidi Videotape: 2 Explosive Quotes Leaked

It's a video tape. One of hundreds of people could have given it to the press. The LA Times could release the tape and still protect the identity of the source. This agreement, which was supposedly made, with the source is flimsy at best. If the source didn't want anyone to see certain parts of the tape then he or she should have just give the minutes of the tape they wanted shown. So why didn't they? Could it be that just to give a segment of the tape would not be enough for the LA Times to run the story? I'm going to say "yes". So with this said does not the LA Times owe the same level of Proof of authenticity to it's reader's. Again I say "yes".

As far the press protecting sources, I believe in this right. But I feel it is being more and more abused by the media as time goes on. Every body wants to run their mouth yet no body want to take ownership of their words. If the source is a whistle blower? that's fine. Protect them. But if you are going to hand a tape over to my News agency? Sorry pal. I won't say you gave it to me but I'll show any part of it.  

These insights are not about the election as much as they are about  deterioration of integrity with in our press. Corruption does not just happen on Wall Street.

One more time, I want to hide something and be sure it never sees the light of day, I burn it, or if I want to keep it, I put it in a safe deposit box.  I do NOT go to the Los Angeles times and give it them telling them I never want it to see the light of day.

This is NOT rocket science.  Simple deduction.  LA Times is not being truthful.  The are in the tank for BO.

No, no they're not.  They're keeping with their source's wishes in regards to this tape.  LA Times is being truthful, and upholding a basic tenant of good journalism.

Journalists protect sources....they don't hide the stories. 

They report the stories (that why we call them reporters) and then they decline to expose the source.  They don't accept videotapes and agree not to report it....especially a story as big as something damaging on a presidential candidate. 

If they did agree to accept the tape/story and delay its release until after the election, they are unethical....so probably that's exactly what they did.

They are protecting the source's wishes in this case.  They aren't hiding a story, because if the McCain campaign really wanted to get at this tape, they would have started the pressure way back in April rather than now.  Perhaps, and just perhaps, there really isn't a story.

And here's how they can use that to their advantage.  Find out that Obama and Khalid were in the same place at a particular time and find out what it was about.  The LA Times won't release their tape because they don't have ownership of it and the person that did give it to them said only for this piece and as long as it doesn't go public.  In this case, the owner is protecting their property.  The LA Times agrees to this.  Now, I'm sure in their fact checking the McCain campaign found out that this was the case, where they were honoring their source's wishes.  This leaves them free to speculate what the tape could really have on it.  And the LA Times gets painted for doing what is right.

Instead of hanging on hypotheticals, things like "Well, Obama would be seen here with Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Phleger, and all kinds of other nefarious types, even though on that basis there is no proof that they were there.", how about we just stick to things that exist in reality as fact.

So if we're going to do that, here's what it boils down to.

Fact: Barack Obama is seen at a going away for someone and Khalid is there.

Fact: If you want to point at that as evidence of wrongdoing, then a good explanation for McCain and his connection to Khalid should be explained as well.

And as far as them agreeing not to report it, they already have reported it.  They wrote the story back in April.  To say this is unethical, to me, is reaching.  It would be journalistically unethical if they broke with their agreement and released the tape.

They're keeping with their source's wishes in regards to this tape.

The L.A. Times is definitely in the tank for B.O.  They have endorsed him.  The article written in the spring seemed to me to be relatively low key really.  I think the problem with the L.A. Times is that if the video is released, America will (not just speculate), but know that MSM is in the tank for B.O. 

It has been said that Ayers and Bernadette Dorn (sp) were at this function.  I question whether or not they might be sitting with the Obamas.  If so, just more proof of the lies that B.O. has told.  Also, what was B.O.'s real reaction to the anti-Israel comments made during this function?????

If this tape was nothing, the Obama camp would be jumping at the bit to release it just to make the McCain camp look bad!!!!

J.

And again, you know this how?  Oh, you really don't.  You're just making @!$%# up.

And again, you know this how? 

Know What?  (which part are you talking about, then I'll answer your question).

Thanks,

J.

Hers is my theory. Yes it is just a theory.

The LA Times is a loyal Democrat party newspaper that got the goods on Obama when Clinton was still in the running. The Idea was to use this tape against Obama so Cinton, who was their candidate of choice at the time, would win out over Obama. Then before it got real big the LA Times saw it was a lost cause. So, still ultimately being a loyal Democrat newspaper, the LA Times buried the story. I also think the Republicans knew where the story was the whole time. But they sat on it until late in the elections with hopes that when they did let it out the Obama camp wouldn't have enough time to do damage control.

I see cut throat tactic on both sides and am disappointed in all.  

You may be right.

You may be right.

You may be crazy, but it just might be a lunatic we're looking for.

You may be wrong, for all I know, but you may be riiiiiiiiiiiight.  :-)

It's dangerous to insult the intelligence of Jewish voters with such stupidity. 

Lawdoc, you are right there....Obama and his Muslim crew are all anti-jew Rashid Khalidi was the spokesperson for the PLO, and Obama has a long line of Muslim friends,Just what is this man really up to.                 RNOEL,  No one but Obama is insulting the Jews, asking them for their vote when he plots against them with his Muslim buddies..Its disgraceful the way he panders for votes.

Ok more right wing nut job speak I see. Obama is not Muslim and it would not matter if he was. There are thousands of Muslims over as we speak fighting for this country under the US Flag in Iraq. You do realize that it's just plain stupid to hate someone because they are a Muslim. You must not be Christian because a real believer in God doesn't hate. Your bubble is about to burst because Obama is about to be the next president of this country and it must suck for you that there is nothing you can do about it.

This last minute attempt to further smear a not only nice guy, but good father, good husband, well educated black man just cannot work.  Our hope for surviving as a country lies in Obama.  McCain is just to unstable and erratic to be given the reins to the power of the West.  He is not to be trusted to keep us safe, economically viable or educated. 

Tay,

You do realize that it's just plain stupid to hate someone because they are a Muslim.

You are the one who brought up hate are you projecting your hate for the "right wing nut job"

Polls are getting closer why is that? Maybe "the truth hurts" "that one"

As a Jew let me just say I am more than comfortable with his "Jew-ness".

As a Jew, and assuming he actually said "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine” plus there’s been “genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis", then I would more or less agree with him.

Would any of you state that Israel has some God-given right to occupy Palestine?

“genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis",

They have been fighting for forever. That goes both ways.

Would any of you state that Israel has some God-given right to occupy Palestine?

I think that depends on people beliefs for the answer to that. I think if one believes in Gods words, then yes, if not then maybe a it's a no.

They have been fighting for forever. That goes both ways.

Yes they have; since Isaac and Ismael. I pray that Israel (or Palestine for that matter) never has to forevermore answer for a genocide the way we do for ours of Native Americans.

I think that depends on people beliefs for the answer to that. I think if one believes in Gods words, then yes, if not then maybe a it's a no.

A valid point. In the context of this alleged tape and Obama's alleged statement, does anyone here believe they should support or oppose a Presidential Candidate because they believe God wants Israel to occupy Palestine?

I believe in God's word, yet I don't claim he made me his Chosen Banker, and that all funds now belong to me.

One word:

Nationalsozialismus

I bet the Jews had no clue before the Holocaust.  Does history repeat itself?

Deo,

What exactly are you trying to say?  Why don't you just come out and make your point?  Is it because even you don't believe the crap your spewing?

Now I REALLY want to vote for Obama.  All these lies make me more determined to vote for him.  thanks.

I am just wondering.

Control of the media.  Control of Guns.  Reducing the military.  Redistributing the wealth (to friends in Chicago). Love and affection (Gaga Complex).

I don't know.

http://www.gunbanobama.com/default.aspx?NavGuid=00bdd116-898f-4f21-8e99-a68a40642560&t=Hunters

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/

biggerthebetter:

You were always going to vote for Obama in the first place.

What I don't understand that all you whites who are afraid of a black man will not admit it. But McCain and his group of right wingers gave over 400K to this anti-jew group but that is ok. I never did understand your thinking. McCain is associated with this Palantian, he is associated with Ayers ...he pals around the same people as Obama but that is ok because he is white? Is that the story? I am just trying to put it in content, you know the October Surprise but every time McCain is smeared in it too. But you look away, like the wizard of oz...you know the scene where they are not to look at the man behind the curtain...that is McCain but you refuse to see him...I don't understand.

Everytime you people try to stick something on him, it sticks to your boy McCain so how about sticking to the issues. You had the three parts of government for 6 long years and you screwed up. you ruined this country but the first thing out of your racist mouths is that if blacks had not gotten home loans the country would be great! Better than chocolate cake but that is a bald face lie but you won't face it.

The hatred spewed from your mouths is so ugly.

So Deo, It would be perfectly all right for me to wonder about George Bush and his connection to Nazi Germany?

Or maybe how John McCain spent five and a half years as a guest of a communist government where the only people he spoke with were communists and did radio shows for those same communists.  He lived for five and a half years under communism and ate and lived for free and received free medical attention.

I could wonder about all those things, and they would all be as accurate as your speculations.

Obviously, you have no balls, as you simply won't come out a say what you mean.  If you intend to call someone a fascist, first understand what a fascist is.  Then think twice, because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

What I don't understand that all you whites who are afraid of a black man will not admit it.

That's a bold statement and it says a lot about your state of mind. You obviously are as race conscious as Obama. No vote for Obama doesn't = racists. Stop playing the race crap, it's old.

Whose "you people"?

When and why did McCain come up?

Who likes George Bush?  His social corporate welfare and "Stimulus Checks" need to go,  along with Pelosi and Reid. Plus he never reversed the Acts/Bills Clinton signed/revised for the Mortgage companies.

Now we are going to save GMC and Crysler.  Why didn't we save the vinyl record manufacturers?  Did it ever occur its time for them to go away and new companies like Fisker, Tesla, and Zap to take over?

Could someone please explain to the Muslims it's "just plain stupid" to hate Christians?

That sort of goes the other way as well, don't you think?

GeorgeOrwell. That was my point. Please read statement 4.3

Everyone be safe and thougtful tomorrow.

Wheres your proof Wolverine????

Wheres your proof Wolverine????

Where's your proof, Beverly, that Obama hates Isreal as you stated above?

Obama and his Muslim crew are all anti-jew

She doesn't need any proof!  Sarah Palin and John McCain came to her in a dream and told her so!

What? You want facts?  Everyone knows the facts have a well-known liberal bias!

HA! Okie dokie then!

At least her church is praying for the Jews as opposed to the palestinian suicide bombers killing the Jews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8CMRo6aqrQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIOD5X68lIs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Q7fgiNVoc

Ooops

i ask myself one question . when has there been better conditions in israel , under CLINTON OR UNDER BUSH ?

Well there was that time when David was king. Point being, if your going to talk you have to be prepared to speak of a history spreading over 2000 years.

Well there was that time when David was king. Point being, if your going to talk you have to be prepared to speak of a history spreading over 2000 years.

And was David a Republican or a Democrat? Point being, if you're going to completely ignore a simple yes/no question in favor of going offtopic, you have to be prepared for someone to ask what the hell you're doing?

So whats your point?

Lets realease the tape, show that it is all nonsense, and get Obama into office.

Exactly what's wrong with converting...?   People do it all of the time. People can be Mormon and covert to Catholic or Muslim to Christian. You say it like ones conversion is a bad thing. It's a choice someone makes, it's not forced upon them.

Palin's church does it against people's will, iluvmyblog.  They have no respect for any religion or sect but their own.

Wolverine: I don't see this stuff on there. Maybe I'm blind.

Palin's church does it against people's will,

I need some proof on this claim, without proof it will be refuted.

Now you suddenly need proof?  But you're quite willing to accept any lie that is made against Obama.

Do you have any ethical standards that you will not violate? (Not you personally, just the great mass of Republican and rightwing commentators).

lol George... the facts have been proved about Obama. You should research your candidate as much as you do his opponent.

 So... do you or do you not have any proof of this claim..."Palin's church does it against people's will" ?   My guess is y'all don't, which is why you tried to divert it with a question...

I,

I'm not arguing about the claim; I'm discussing your lack of ethical standards when it comes to what is true and what is false.  You keep repeating Republican talking points, which have been shown to be completely false, as if if you keep doing this they will suddenly become true.  But they aren't and they won't.

Perhaps you should try to tell the truth.  Not what you wish to be true, but what is actually accurate and has a basis in fact.

Perhaps you should try to tell the truth.  Not what you wish to be true, but what is actually accurate and has a basis in fact.

Right back at ya ;)

Ok maybe I can explaiin...just like the Mormon church used to do..they would get the name of a Jewish person who died recently and convert them to their religious sect...when that came out about the Mormons the Jewish people revolted...they were insulted for their faith is very important to them.

Maybe you practice this type of religion where you claim that you can change a person from being gay to straight..whatever.

George was trying to have a conversation with you but you only believe the talkiing points of the wingnuts..who claim to speak to god directly...Anyway no one is trying to 'convince' you of any truths for you are not open to any. We can say the sky is blue but you will claim it is grey/red/purple any color but blue. That is all. also no matter what lie you spew you think that it is truth no matter if someone put the true in your face for if Rush L. or Bill O did not spit on it and shine it up for you, you would not believe or accept it.

Please point out where I have lied.

Now you suddenly need proof?  But you're quite willing to accept any lie that is made against Obama.

I'm for Obama, and I see nothing on Palin's page about anti-gay ceremonies. That's all I was saying.

b,

Sorry if you misunderstood.  My remark was aimed at I since he/she only needs proof when it is a statement made against his/her beliefs.

Ms. B: thanks for the clarification. I was wondering if that's what wolverine meant...

My remark was aimed at I since he/she only needs proof when it is a statement made against his/her beliefs.

George: Absolutely. No use in arguing with "that one"

If someone said  they has a tape of Sarah's church forcing people to convert I would ask to see it.

I don't think anybody with a conscience condones the behavior of Israel or our complicity in it.

I don't think you have considered that Islamic terrorists are in fact trying to kill the Jews of Israel,have been for some time now.

jdunn,

I suspect that most free thinking Americans agree with those comments anyway.

You are not proof of that!

And there would probably be no such thing as an "Islamic terrorist" if it weren't for Israel. According to Wikipedia, the Jewish Legion, a group of battalions composed primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine. The League of Nations then approved the "British Mandate of Palestine" to create a national home for the Jewish people. In 1945 the British came into violent conflict with the Jews and withdrew from the mandate. Then in 1947 the UN approved the partition of Palestine into two separate Jewish and Arab states. One year later, Israel declared independence.

That's the modern history of Israel. The Arab League did not agree that Jerusalem would become an international city administered by the UN. Aside from that, they mostly went along with the imperialist mandate. But the Jews simply couldn't get along with anybody, the British nor the Arabs.

I am in no way anti semitic, but I have never understood why America feels this need to support Israel at all costs. It must be because Jewish bankers own us.

One question you should be asking is what happened to the palistinian state that was formed during the patrition.  The Jewish section was supposed to be 1/3 of the area and Palistine was supposed to cover the other 2/3.  But it never happened.  The surround arab/muslim countries surrounding the partition annexed the sections closest to them and declared war on Isreal.

But the Jews simply couldn't get along with anybody, the British nor the Arabs

Lol The British tried staying in the middle on that one and paid for it.  The Arabs and Jews were fighting each other and the British at the same time.

the Jewish Legion, a group of battalions composed primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine

They took part in 3 minor battles/skirmishes against an empire that was streched to the limit.  The Ottoman empire was tottering and would most likely had fallen within a few years if it hadn'[t been on the losing side in WW1.  The lands confiscated from the Ottoman empire were used to form Jordan, Lebanon, and 39 others.  After WW1, the regiment was disbanded and only the core of one battalion or brigade remained.  After the disbandment, most of the soldiers returned to their countries with only a small portion staying in the area.  The battalion/brigade (can't remember which) returned to Egypt and then on to Britain where it was incorperated into another unit

The League of Nations then approved the "British Mandate of Palestine" to create a national home for the Jewish people

And it resulted in riots in 1920-1923 that killed many arabs, and two, the British Mandate was not implemented as were many other items the League approved. 

In 1945 the British came into violent conflict with the Jews and withdrew from the mandate

Actually went on a lot longer then that,  the Palitinain problem came into effect during the 1920-23 riots when the details of the British Mandate came out.  The Jewish joined in during the late 20's through till 1947. 

And there would probably be no such thing as an "Islamic terrorist" if it weren't for Israel.

Show me proof..... Or link something that does prove it.  As it was said in the past "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"  Terrorists have been around in one way, shape, or form for a lot longer the the Palistinian/ Israel problem.  The base on which the main Palastinian groups depend on is in the refugees from the first war.  The one where the arab countries invaded Israel....  The refugees left when the arab countries told them to leave since they were going to destroy Israel.  Funny how the land Israel captured from the other arab countries were supposed to be part of Palistine in the first place.  By the last war,  Israel was almost at the boundries of what was supposed to be the original Palastinian state.

*sorry bout the spelling,  the darn buttons don't seem to want to work again and was typing to fast to doublecheck myself since I'm at work. 

jdunn,

 You may never understand, but a hint is that it has to do with a little book most of us have read, and believe to be true.

 I would propose the bigger question is why do all the surrounding countries hate Israel? Seems the only time they have taken land was when they were attacked, why is it they hate such a small country that wants to be left alone? They certainly are not imperialistic because they have the power to take much of the surrounding land but do not. Makes you go hmmmm.

 Oh and the Jewish bankers jab, where did you get that one, sound like right out of late 30's Germany! Your anti semite shorts are showing.

The Jews were originally expelled from those lands by the Romans and the Byzantine Empire, not the Palestinians. The bible not only has numerous different versions, but has been interpreted in many different ways. I don't believe it should be used as an excuse to treat the Palestinians so poorly.

In any event, I doubt this issue will ever be solved, so it is rather pointless to argue over. I still believe that Israel should not receive our support to the detriment of MIddle East relations, but that's just how it is I guess.

jdunn 10.6

This may help you to understand the truth about the history of the mid east, or the Arab, Israeli conflict.

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/

I don't doubt that some of the information in that link is true, but it seems awfully one sided. Not surprising coming from David Horowitz, the neocon who is trying to dumb down our universities with his Academic Freedom campaign.

Sorry I brought the whole thing up, I don't wish to engage in an argument that will never end. I do find it amusing that any utterance questioning the motives or actions of Israel elicits an accusation of being anti semitic.

jdunn, I agree with you about the never ending argument about Isreal and it place in the world. It will never be settled and the ones claiming well there is the 'little' book that explains only want to use Isreal as stepping stone to 'heaven' which I don't understand for no where is there listed 'rapture' except maybe the Catholic version of the bible.

Also remember the Mormon have their own intepretation and feel that they have the truth...Jehovah's Witnesses who really live as close to the bible as possible, have another version...so it depends on what tickles your ear and you accept as your 'truth'

We are a 'dumb' nation who claim that we are the greatest, etc but in reality the other countries are smarter than we are...they have people who can think while we have people who think lipstick on a pig or bull dog is the BOMB! We have people who really thing that the president of USA speaks directly with the All Mighty, really! But in the other parts of the world, someone like GWB would be locked away with mental illness doctors treating him. These same people think that they are the chosen ones who will go straight to heaven while cursing others who are 'not like them' and hate them for they have the same excused their forefathers used when blacks were slaves...well the blacks are not real people...they are property. Or I like the one well they are not like us...they are called 'that one'' as if they were less than.

But that is ok for they don't need 'proof' for they are right, he is black therefore not to be trusted but hey if you are black or hispanic, well go die for this country for they will allow that.

You took that quote out of context.

He said they have suffered the most as a result of stalled peace efforts with Israel.

brkfstclblvr,

OK, that specific quote is going around, as Obama's quote...

Besides that....

Here are a few facts that would help your readers make a more informed decision about Barak Obama:

Although his father & step-father are Muslim and Obama attended a Muslim school, he chooses to attend a church headed by Jeremiah Wright, a Black Muslim supporter of Louis Farrakhan and who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and whose governing body has taken a series of anti-Israel actions.

Obama also gained the support of George Soros, a fierce foe of Israel who has openly proclaimed his desire to break the bonds between America and Israel and has written of his desire to erode political support for Israel. Soros called for concessions to Hamas after which Obama appeared with Soros at a fundraiser.

Another fund raiser for Obama was held at the home of former Knicks player Allan Houston who had publicly proclaimed that Jews had Jesus’ “blood on their hands” and are “stubborn”. The American Jewish Congress noted that Obama would not take any money from someone who had expressed the same sort of remarks about African-Americans. Obama’s spokesman said Obama would not return the money raised by Houston.

Obama has openly advocated outreach towards Iran, a state that makes clear its genocidal intentions towards Israel, funds Hezbollah and terrorism against America, Israel, and Jewish targets throughout the world. He seemingly excuses attacks against Americans by Iranian-supported terror groups because we have provoked Iran by trying to liberate Iraq.

Obama is frequently absent during Senate votes so as not to have to take a stance on difficult issues such as when Congress voted to identify The Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terror group. This would make The IRG susceptible to sanction. Obama then criticized his opponents for supporting this bill.

Obama has called for withdrawal from Iraq which would destabilize the region and strengthen Iran’s military foothold. He has called for the abolition of nuclear weapons claiming that a nuclear armed America gives countries like Iran and North Korea justification for nukes.

I shudder to think that Obama as president would have access to nuclear arms. He doesn’t have the experience or judgment to utilize our military to safeguard our country or our allies. He has already said that he wants to negotiate with our enemies but is willing to attack Pakistan (our ally in the Afgan war).

I hope your writer and the editor that chose to run this story understand that by a candidate seeking financial backing from Jews, doesn’t mean that he is “reaching out to the Jewish Community”.

It would be nice if you would give us the link so that we can determine for oursleves whether or not we choose to accept what this author states as opposed to just giving us a long quote that you believe supports your assertion.

It's no problem for me to give a link, but either way, these are facts that the author states. So you can choose to agree with the facts or not.

http://www.chicagojewishnews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2015

This is the opinion of a blogger.  He cites no evidence.  He makes assumptions based upon his own feelings about Obama, yet to you, this is fact.

Go back to school and learn what facts are.  They are not, let me repeat that, not just what your gut tells you is true.  They are verifiable and based on evidence.

You have no clue what a fact is.

You quoting a blog for fact? when did Corsi get here?

So it's not a fact that Obama chose to attend a church for 20 years that is headed by Rev. Wright ( Who's said " Not God Bless America, but God Damn America"), who is in support of Louis Farrakhan ( who is the National Representative for NOI), who is an anti-Israel advocate. And Obama has even helped to organize Louis Farrakhan's "Million Man March".... Yet now he denounces his support, like he denounced his pastor Rev. Wright, and Ayers.

It's not a fact that Obama has openly advocated outreach towards Iran (without pre-conditions), who's President has stated he would wipe Israel off the map...and anyone who gets in the way( U.S.A), us.  And openly hates Americans...and our freedoms.

It's not a fact that Obama has support from George Soros, who wants to break our ties with Israel, a man that Obama has attended fundraisers with... just like Ayers...

Those are facts, nobody made up Obama's past, nobody made Obama choose his ill friends, or attend a church for 20 years with a hate filled preacher. If you don't like those facts then maybe you really don't like Obama.

It's not that those aren't facts, it's that nobody except you gives a @!$%# about them.

We are not the people we associate with. Point out a politician who hasn't associated with unsavory people to get and then keep the job and... oh, that's right, you can't. We live in the real world, not some fantasy world where there is such a thing as a perfect candidate.

It's not a fact that Obama has openly advocated outreach towards Iran (without pre-conditions)

And I completely agree with that. Considering the complete failure of our Iranian policy for the last 30 years, how is a new approach a bad thing? Putting preconditions on discussions so you ensure they never happen is simply a way to ensure you always have the national security issue come election time; it's simply a way of ensuring the continuance of the us-versus-them strategy of winning elections by building up nationalist sentiment.

Republicans love to talk about abortion. 28 out of the last 40 years have been Republican presidents... and yet, what exactly has been done about it? What about when Bush had the White House and majorities in both the house and senate? The fact is that nothing has changed because it's far more useful to have the issue than the solution.

Republicans love to trumpet their National Security creds. The Iranian hate-hate relationship could be solved with a long phone call if we wanted to. However, it's a useful thing for both the Mullahs and the Republicans... so it never will.

I,

Again, half-truths and dissimilation.  Did he attend the church where Rev. Wright was a minister; yes.  Does that make him an enemy of Israel: no.  As he has pointed out on numerous occassions, and you and your ilk choose to ignore, there is no better friend to Israel than he.

Openly advocated outreach to Iran: What do you mean by outreach?  If you mean we should negotiate and have diplomatic discussions with one of the most powerful countries in the middle east (thank you, george bush), then, yes, he advocates outreach.

If, otoh, you are suggesting the usual talking points that he is going to hand them the keys to the kingdom, then you are just blowing @!$%# out your ass.

Does George Soros support Obama?  I would think so.  Does George Soros advocate for the destruction of Israel; that appears to be a new one.  Provide a source, then you can put it in the factual column.  And, please, not another commentator on a blog.  A checkable source.

As for the guilt by association thing: McCain's organization gave Khalidi's organization a half a million dollars.  If Khalidi is a terrorist, as you would have us believe, which is worse, having dinner with a terrorist or giving him the money to buy whatever he wants?

Me: when I worry about security, I generally worry about whether or not the terrorists can do what they wish and how they finance it.  It seems John McCain believes in financing terrorists.

(Not really; as Khalidi is a moderate palestinian scholar who teaches at Columbia.)

It's not that those aren't facts, it's that nobody except you gives a @!$%# about them

Not exactly true. There are many people that care about a person's character, loyalty and judgement especially when they are up for Presidency. How can someone disregard the fact that Obama's past and his present,when it is filled with radicals and flawed plans.

We are not the people we associate with

You are what you hang around with...

Does George Soros advocate for the destruction of Israel; that appears to be a new one.  Provide a source, then you can put it in the factual column. 

I didn't say he calls for their destruction, I said he wants to break our ties with Israel.

As for the guilt by association thing: McCain's organization gave Khalidi's organization a half a million dollars. 

They are still looking into the money that was given as a grant for Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank, when McCain served as the chairman in the 1990s. McCain is not like Obama who ate dinner with the man and shared worldly views, or attended a party with the guy, big difference. Seems to me that Obama may have something to hide... Expalins why LAT doesn't want to release the video. So they bring up the grant. If McCain had anything to hide about that grant he wouldn't be bringing up Rashid Khalidi. The Obama camp knows that tape is going to come out with Obama doing wrong.

I love the way 'facts' DO NOT get in the way of iluvmyblog beliefs. It is a shame that GeorgeOrwell disputes his lies but than iluvmyblog comes back with another lie, never answers the questions or skirts around the truth and FACTS.

What a shame this is all they got, lies and smears but guess what we don't worship your god, GWB, we are better.

I,

So your argument now is that it is the lesser of two evils to give money to a person your side is trying to label a terrorist as opposed to just being at the same dinner he is at?  This is your argument now?  That aiding and abetting a person your side would like to label a terrorist is less of an issue than eating dinner with him?

Do you have a moral compass at all?

And as for Soros; You said nothing about Soros.  You took a blog post by someone who did not back up their arguments and presented it to us as though it was fact and that we should just take you at your word as though it were fact.  None of what you have written has any evidence to support it.  Without evidence, you're just making @!$%# up!

Ms. B,

I love the way 'facts' DO NOT get in the way of iluvmyblog beliefs.

lol! You have nerve talking about "ignoring facts". I'm assuming your OK with Obama's past and present even if it involves radicals that he obviously shares views with. I'm not as gullible as y'all are. And I will continue to question his past, as well as his present. His policies are horrible and are being over looked due to his party and ignorant people by the masses.

George,

You anger makes me laugh. You are angry at the wrong person and will continue down the path of ignorance if you don't take a good look at who you are supporting. I can't wait for this video to be released but I know that you followers will disregard it like all his other faults. It's sicking...

OK, that specific quote is going around, as Obama's quote...

But that is not the entire context of the quote. I could say, "I dislike you" for example, but then say, "when you don't stand up for yourself."

See how that simple example throws the first part of the quote completely out of context? Don't believe everything you read. And the little article you posted...thank you bloggers for helping me out with that one!!

I,

I'm not angry at you, I just pity your ignorance and simple your lack of understanding what a fact is.  The reason I pity you is that I assume you are smart enough to learn but choose instead not to.

You, and all the rest of those whining about this tape, have no idea what is on that tape.  Therefore. all your specualtion about the tape is just lies.

As for the questions I asked: why won't you answer them?  Because even you know that it is far worse to give money to a person you consider a terrorist than to be at a dinner with him.

And you have no idea whether the Soros remarks are correct.  So you choose ignorance on purpose.

brkfstclblvr,

I understand what you're saying. I didn't know they took his quote out of context. That was wrong.

George,

I'm not the one ignoring these facts about Obama it's you. You want to stay in your ignorance about Obama.

As for the questions I asked: why won't you answer them?  Because even you know that it is far worse to give money to a person you consider a terrorist than to be at a dinner with him.

Hello, I did...

They are still looking into the money that was given as a grant for Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank, when McCain served as the chairman in the 1990s. McCain is not like Obama who ate dinner with the man and shared worldly views, or attended a party with the guy, big difference. Seems to me that Obama may have something to hide... Expalins why LAT doesn't want to release the video. So they bring up the grant. If McCain had anything to hide about that granthe wouldn't be bringing up Rashid Khalidi.The Obama camp knows that tape is going to come out with Obama doing wrong.

I don't agree that giving a grant to an organization was wrong, unless there was an ill agenda behind it. It would say more to me if McCain was paling around with Khalidi, like Obama. If they both are hiding things then, I'll feel the same about McCain as I do Obama and not trust him. Though if McCain had anything to hide, he wouldn't bring up Khalidi. It's not my probelm you don't agree with my answer.

In regards to George Soros, well he is saying that the U.S and Israel are the ones that are making it difficult for peace to happen between the Israelis and the Palestinians. When that is not  true. Hamas which is a threat to Israel, is to be included in the Palestinian unity government, therefore Israel is not allowing the peace settlement. Which how can anyone blame them. Also, note that Hamas is funded by Iran and Saudi Arabia...

HAMAS receives funding from Palestinian expatriates, Iran, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other moderate Arab states.Some fundraising and propaganda activities take place in Western Europe and North America. As of 2003 US intelligence sources estimated that the militant Palestinian group Hamas had an annual budget of 50 million dollars, raising much of that money through its reputation as a charity. Despite its notoriety worldwide as a terrorist group, many Palestinians see Hamas as a charitable organization that builds schools and hospitals and steps in where the Palestinian Authority has failed.

 Soros knows that Israel needs are our because of the enemies that she has. Iran is also a huge threat to the Israelis and why we the U.S.A are standing beside her to ensure her citizens safety. He criticize the AIPAC actions and states..." AIPAC's mission is to ensure American support for Israel but in recent years it has overreached itself". AIPAC is doing it's job on protecting Israel from these terrorists. And yes, even more so now because the threats are out there with the funding to make them happen.

Maybe you should educate yourself on Soros views and research why Israel is being defended by the U.S., instead of calling me the ignorant one, because that I am not , I do educate myself on these issues.

I'm wondering why any of us are choosing to continue arguing with someone who used a comment from a blog as their sole basis of information.

It is clear that logic and reasoning has officially left the building at this point.

This person makes a great point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxhYampIl7A

What does this guy's opinion have to do with the price of tea in China?

I,

Your lack of knowledge continues to amaze me.  You're blaming Soros for Hamas now?  As I recall, it was the Bush Admin which demanded elections in Gaza and the West Bank, even though the PLO was saying that wasn't a particularly good idea.

So, because of pressure from the Bush Admin, elections were held, and lo and behold, it turns out that most of the Palestinians were fed up with their present leadership and voted for Hamas.  Soros isn't even part of the eqaution.

As for your Mccain cop-out: Obama is at a faculty dinner with someone and that, in your eyes, makes him guilty by association, never mind the professor is not a terrorist, is not a terrorist sympathizer, has not been a spokesman for the PLO as Sarah Palin has continually lied about.  There is nothing there.

But, as you assume he is a terrorist, you cannot see where giving money to a terrorist is worse than having dinner with him.

What passes for your brain is mush.

You're blaming Soros for Hamas now? 

Re-read my comment, your reading comprehension is way off, and you say I lack in knowledge... pfffft. You know I'm not surprised that you'd tried to twist what I said, not surprised at all. All you do here is insult people, which is rather childish. I'm not going to continue this conversation with a person like yourself that resorts to name calling and insults, just another typical Obama supporter. Be angry as much as you want, it doesn't bother me none, actually I just laugh at it ;)

I,

I have reread your post.  You state that Hamas is a threat to Israel.  You state that Soros believes that the only way to peace in the Middle East is if the Palestinainas and the Israelis reconcile.  You insinuate that Khalidi, an American of Palestinian descent, is somehow in league with the PLO.

"In regards to George Soros, well he is saying that the U.S and Israel are the ones that are making it difficult for peace to happen between the Israelis and the Palestinians. When that is not  true."

That's a direct quote.  Please show us how it is not true.  Hamas was elected because the Bush Admin wanted free elections.  Not because the Palestinian Authority wanted them.

You then go on to bring up AIPAC.  Soros makes the claim that they may have over-reached.  Again, you provide no supporting data as to why he is wrong, just that you do not agree.  That is your opinion.  It is not a fact.  You prove nothing, but demand that we believe you.

Honestly, none of what you have written has anything to do with anyone.  Your guilt by association is, like most of the arguments by Republicans here, so weak you're like wet toilet paper.

As for what you do and don't like: I could @!$%#ing care less.  You want to come on here and pretend that outright lies are reality, don't expect me to sit here and read this @!$%# and then respond reasonably.  You insult my and every readers' intelligence by making @!$%# up.  If you don't like being told that you're making @!$%# up, don't make @!$%# up.

JALFR

George, Khalidi does have strong ties with the PLO. 

What you've proven is that there is a biased blogger who has taken what someone said which shows that Khalidi was not a spokesman for the PLO and he disagrees.  Not that there is any hard evidence for his disagreement, just that he doesn't think so.

This is the same thinking I is giving me.  That because he believes it, I should just believe him.  As the article says, the US chose to have Khalidi there, the reason being that the US could not be seen to be negotiating with the PLO.  Nor could Israel be seen to be negotiating with the PLO.  So who do you negotiate with?

And even if Khalidi were to have ties to the PLO, the PLO has not been considered a terrorist organization since 1995.  So Obama having contact with him remains a non-issue.

It's amazing what Republicans will say just to try to create some false outrage.

Our country is based on Christian beliefs

No, Sonya, it's not. I'm sorry to burst your religious bubble here, folks, but we are not a Christian nation. Maybe more people are Christian than not, but that does not mean it is somehow our "National Religion."

Does Obama remind anyone else of the description of the Anti-Christ?

This is complete hooey, and I hope this comment gets collapsed.

Not sure why you are pushing this all over the vine unless it is you. Many of us have already seen this, and btw, we saw it months ago.

Thanks anyway!

Honest huh?  Didn't McCain have some kind of thing with Letterman over the whole honesty thing?

Did not vote 46% of the time or present huh?  Didn't McCain not vote 64% of the time?

And the finger pointing over the new economy crisis, no one party carries the blame for it.  They're both involved in that.  And as for Obama receiving funds from Fannie, yeah he did, and for that I'm not happy.  But isn't the chief executive officer of McCain's campaign Rick Davis paid $15,000 a month from 2005 to August of this year by Freddie?

Come on, this partisan crap is getting ridiculous, let's point blame and hope it sticks.  Get real.  None of these guys are shiny, they're both mired in the same politics as usual, just one of them claims to be a maverick and the other is on hopesicles. 

I can go on, but I'm thinking that this might not get through.  I hope it will, but I'm also hoping on winning the lottery.  Maybe even odds.

Deo,

Your coal quote is taken out of context, therefore inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to defraud.

Your healthcare statements are not accuarte as they do not take into account McCain's psoition to taxe helath benefits for the first time, moving the onus from corporations onto the individual.

Your wealth redistribution statements are completely inaacurate: The US has one of the lowest individual tax rates in the world.  Look it up.

Your economic statements are false.  Blaming Fannie and Freddie is just rRepublican talking points.  Poor people did not cause the financial crisis; Greedy people did. 

It's just amazing how much lying one group can do.  Every statement you made above is inaccurate and deliberately misleading. Please quit believeing we are stupid enough to fall for this @!$%#!