What We Look For In Our Leaders

payn090921_01_cmyk20090921093553.jpg


There are many traits that we all look for and admire in our leaders. If they don't have these traits then the chances are they won't win and they'll have to go to work like the rest of us. These traits are not listed in order of importance but each one is important none the same.

1. Do you like the person?

This is usually the number one trait need to be successful in politics. Most of the voters must like you personally. If they like you they tend to overlook any faults you may have.


2. Do you trust them?

This is almost as important as the first but it seems in some people's minds it doesn't matter as much as being a winner does. Being trustworthy is important but winning tends to overrule trust in some people's minds.


3. Do they make you feel safe?

I know this is a big one but it is secondary to the other two. It really depends on how you feel about yourself and your place in the world. Do you feel that there are threats out there and if you feel it's the case does it seem like they're on the case? Are you afraid of threats outside the country or within? This will determine who you vote for.


4. Do they listen to you?

It's important to be in touch with the folks. If they give you the impression that they feel they are better then you do you think they will get your vote?


5. Are they competent leaders?

If a politician seems spineless chances are they won't get your vote....but this all depends on what you feel is spineless. Do they stick to their guns? Do they act like they know what they're doing? Do they bend with the wind or stand up to everything that's thrown at them...and take it with class?


6. Do they believe in what you believe?

This one tends to overrule many of the others. It's kind of hard to vote for someone who believes in abortion when you don't. It's also as hard to believe in a politician who likes to raise taxes when you feel you're overtaxed already.


Now ask yourself these questions. Ask them about Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or anyone else.

If most or not all of the answers are NO then chances are that person is in serious trouble come November. Some people will get only one yes and still vote for a candidate because that trait is more important then all of the others.

Anyone who wants to discuss why the politician in question gets a no or a yes....feel free.

mudwhistle, my POV is that 99% of all folks who choose politics as a livliehood are what are known as "high power image needs" type folks -- yanno, sociopaths?

People who seek after fame a la Hollywoord etc. want Fame.

People who seek after money (to the exclusion of all else) seek to feed their Avarice.

But People who seek after Power are the scariest of them all to me...and we call them POLITICIANS. They are also called Serial Murderers...Confidence Artists...Talk Show Hosts...etc. Not every sociopath is bright and not every one is getting his groove on. As with anything else, some sociopaths fail to acieve their goals.

Bernie Madoff = Ted Bundy = Ronald Reagan = Adam Lambert.

Ever see a Betty Davis movie called "All About Eve"? It's the story of how many lives one chick is willing to destroy to achieve her goal of being famous and the creepy way she cloaks her bad behaviors and black heart. And that is sociopathy -- a zero ability to/interest in the effect any action one takes does/may affect others. The ONLY test a sociopath puts a plan through is "Will This Work?"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6m37ddd2Sc]YouTube - All About Eve (1950) Trailer[/ame]

I will admit to having the blinding sensation that Obama was the Second Coming of MLK Jr., whom I deeply loved and still grieve for. But leaving aside my ability to succumb to bullshit and misdirection....

threecardmontewallet.jpg


When a politican is a person who, in college or thereabouts, chooses politics over say, cancer research or landscape gardening, as his path/goal in life, IMO that's a person with a craven need to be able to influence and control others. I happen to have seen politicianss in their natural environment, up close and personal, when they relaxed behind closed doors, etc. Not one single damned one of them would hesitate to chew through a carpet of babies to get at what they REALLY seek -- POWER.

I vote for the candidate whose platforms and campaign telegraph to me that he will be the one least likely to harm me. In Obama's case, he telegraghed to me that not only would he not harm me, he'd actually advance some issues of social justice I hold dear.

I should have known better. I was naieve, but mudwhsitle, what excuse is here for naievete' in one's mid-50's?

Anyone who worships at the altar of a man or woman on the political stage -- as opposed to merely joining the candidate's posse and getting such rewards as access and the ability to force them to listen to you -- will someday enjoy the same uncomfy burining senation I have now.

Heartburn.

These are very appealing monsters. The key is to always remember that one must take care in interacting with monsters not to be bitten...or chewed through. The power-mad are very different from you and me, mudwhistle. We look at whom our actions will harm and place limits on ourselves accordingly. The Power-Mongers do not.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF4BxBdcd7Y]YouTube - The happy Monsters Band[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Look at Presidential "popularity" at this link

Looking through the list, it appears that Americans Like:

1. Presidents that have died, or have been killed or wounded in office (with the sad exception of Garfield).

2. Presidents that held the office before strong political parties had formed in the USA.
 
payn090921_01_cmyk20090921093553.jpg


There are many traits that we all look for and admire in our leaders. If they don't have these traits then the chances are they won't win and they'll have to go to work like the rest of us. These traits are not listed in order of importance but each one is important none the same.

1. Do you like the person?

This is usually the number one trait need to be successful in politics. Most of the voters must like you personally. If they like you they tend to overlook any faults you may have.


2. Do you trust them?


This is almost as important as the first but it seems in some people's minds it doesn't matter as much as being a winner does. Being trustworthy is important but winning tends to overrule trust in some people's minds.


3. Do they make you feel safe?

I know this is a big one but it is secondary to the other two. It really depends on how you feel about yourself and your place in the world. Do you feel that there are threats out there and if you feel it's the case does it seem like they're on the case? Are you afraid of threats outside the country or within? This will determine who you vote for.


4. Do they listen to you?

It's important to be in touch with the folks. If they give you the impression that they feel they are better then you do you think they will get your vote?


5. Are they competent leaders?

If a politician seems spineless chances are they won't get your vote....but this all depends on what you feel is spineless. Do they stick to their guns? Do they act like they know what they're doing? Do they bend with the wind or stand up to everything that's thrown at them...and take it with class?


6. Do they believe in what you believe?

This one tends to overrule many of the others. It's kind of hard to vote for someone who believes in abortion when you don't. It's also as hard to believe in a politician who likes to raise taxes when you feel you're overtaxed already.


Now ask yourself these questions. Ask them about Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or anyone else.

If most or not all of the answers are NO then chances are that person is in serious trouble come November. Some people will get only one yes and still vote for a candidate because that trait is more important then all of the others.

Anyone who wants to discuss why the politician in question gets a no or a yes....feel free.

They are our representatives..not our leaders

If you give your power away with your vote...you are a fool.

Not the popular point of view..but it is mine..
 
Obama has a few friends that have committed violent acts against the United States. He also trained ACORN members which one of their goals is the peaceful overthrow of the government and to cause economic turmoil. These two issue alone would prevent him from getting a security clearance.

I held a TS clearance and I got flagged just because I was molested when I was 6. Any issue in one's past that could cause you to be resentful or hateful has to be investigated.

Obama's close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind. His visit to terrorist states in the Middle East would be the same. It doesn't take much. His family is another...but not exactly a good reason. Seems Bill Clinton couldn't get a clearance ether. Funny....Democrats seem to have serious issues when it comes to clearances.

While your anecdote is interesting, it does not refute existing personnel security standards. The United States Government does not include guilt-by-association as disqualifying. It is the actions of the subject, not the actions of his associates, that may be disqualifying. Neither Obama's friendships nor visits are disqualifying criteria according to the personnel security standards of the United States Government. Please READ the security clearance information provided by the government. Please READ the St. Petersberg Times debunking of this myth.

Frank Marshall Davis's son, who lived with Davis until he joined the military, retired as an Air Force Intelligence Officer (TS/SCI). Obviously his father's FBI file was NOT disqualifying. If this long-term association is not disqualifying, what makes you think that any short-term acquaintance or friendship is disqualifying?

Unfortunately you seem to misrepresent speculation as fact once again. I challenge you to prove that Obama's FRIENDS "committed violent acts against the United States." Proof must consist of empirical evidence (not speculation) that such people actually were "friends," and that they "committed violent acts against the United States." Ayers, for example, was a professional associate. Please prove that they actually were "friends." Please do the same for any other such "friends."

Please provide empirical evidence (not speculation) that an actual "goal" of ACORN "is the peaceful overthrow of the government and to cause economic turmoil." The goals of ACORN are clearly documented at acorn.org.

FYI: "Peaceful overthrow" may be an oxymoron, because the only way our government could be overthrown is by force. If change is peaceful, then it is a hardly qualifies as an "overthrow."

The personnel security standards consider membership in organizations devoted to VIOLENT overthrow, not "peaceful overthrow," to be disqualifying. Causing "economic turmoil" is not a disqualifying factor, nor is training ACORN members.

Further, what "visits to terrorist states" do you consider disqualifying?

BTW: I welcome the opportunity to debate these issues in a cordial manner.

"The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth." - William O. Douglas

Yes...and I think you can't tell the truth from fiction.

Your problem is you refuse to look at the facts.

Frank Davis may have been the father of an Air force Officer that held a TS-SCI clearance (By the way that was what I was given) but being the son of such a person does not mean you can't get a clearance. It just means that you will be investigated because of it. Let me assure you if anything had been found during that investigation that would have prevented him from getting one he never would have recieved one.

I think you need to read about "Project Vote" and "Camp Obama" if they haven't already been deleted from the internet. All the proof is there about "peaceful overthrow of the government" and Obama's avid belief in it.

Look those two up. Google them or look on Yahoo. I suggest Yahoo.

I can't tell you anything. Judging from the past most folks like you can't be shown the evidence and believe it. Just look for yourself. I'm done talking to you.

Sorry, but I checked all five links but found no evidence regarding overthrow of the government. Please QUOTE the exact statements that support your claim. Changing official policy does not constitute "overthrow" of a government.

Your claim that Davis's son would be investigated because of it is wrong. ALL TS candidates are subject to background investigations, not just those with questionable associations. Further, if anything is found during that investigation that would have prevented anyone from getting one, then anyone never would have recieved one. This applies to all candidates, not just Davis's son. Once again, it is the actions of the subject, not the actions of the subject's associates or relatives, that could prevent granting of a clearance.

Your statement "Obama's close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind" seems to conflict with your claim that "being the son of such a person does not mean you can't get a clearance." How would the sporadic contact outlined in "Dreams" be more disqualifying than growing up with Davis, especially considering Obama's limited contact after the age of 16?

I am still awaiting:

1. Evidence to support your claims of Obama's "friendship" with Ayers, Soros, or Rezco
2. The names of Obma's friends that committed violent acts against the U.S.
3. Evidence of Obama's visits to terrorist states
4. Evidence that Wright is a "racist"
5. Evidence that an ACORN goal is the peaceful overthrow of our government
6. Evidence that Obama had an "avid belief" in peaceful overthrow of our government.
7. Evidence that an ACORN goal is causing economic turmoil
8. Evidence that Obama's "close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind." Activity younger than 16 is specifically excluded from consideration. According to "Dreams," Obma visited Davis only once before leaving for college.

BTW: It's rather ironic that you chose Mr. Spock as your avatar, because your allegations are illogical.

"The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth."
- Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)
 
Last edited:
In all honesty I truly believe that the last trait is all that matters to the left when you really get down to it.
.....And, "conservatives" prefer the First....

1. Do you like the person?

....which prompted them to elect the neighborhood-drunk (for President), in 2000.

:rolleyes:
 
payn090921_01_cmyk20090921093553.jpg


There are many traits that we all look for and admire in our leaders. If they don't have these traits then the chances are they won't win and they'll have to go to work like the rest of us. These traits are not listed in order of importance but each one is important none the same.

1. Do you like the person?

This is usually the number one trait need to be successful in politics. Most of the voters must like you personally. If they like you they tend to overlook any faults you may have.


2. Do you trust them?

This is almost as important as the first but it seems in some people's minds it doesn't matter as much as being a winner does. Being trustworthy is important but winning tends to overrule trust in some people's minds.


3. Do they make you feel safe?

I know this is a big one but it is secondary to the other two. It really depends on how you feel about yourself and your place in the world. Do you feel that there are threats out there and if you feel it's the case does it seem like they're on the case? Are you afraid of threats outside the country or within? This will determine who you vote for.


4. Do they listen to you?

It's important to be in touch with the folks. If they give you the impression that they feel they are better then you do you think they will get your vote?


5. Are they competent leaders?

If a politician seems spineless chances are they won't get your vote....but this all depends on what you feel is spineless. Do they stick to their guns? Do they act like they know what they're doing? Do they bend with the wind or stand up to everything that's thrown at them...and take it with class?


6. Do they believe in what you believe?

This one tends to overrule many of the others. It's kind of hard to vote for someone who believes in abortion when you don't. It's also as hard to believe in a politician who likes to raise taxes when you feel you're overtaxed already.


Now ask yourself these questions. Ask them about Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or anyone else.

If most or not all of the answers are NO then chances are that person is in serious trouble come November. Some people will get only one yes and still vote for a candidate because that trait is more important then all of the others.

Anyone who wants to discuss why the politician in question gets a no or a yes....feel free.

what I look for in political aspirants;

a moderate

someone who does NOT cozy up to LEFT WING or RIGHT WING jerks

intelligence
education
rational
reasonable
able to communicate well
a successful track record


sarah palin does NOT qualify

but
heck
neither did obama

s'far as I can tell
NOBODY on this planet is what I would consider to be "presidential" material
 
payn090921_01_cmyk20090921093553.jpg


There are many traits that we all look for and admire in our leaders. If they don't have these traits then the chances are they won't win and they'll have to go to work like the rest of us. These traits are not listed in order of importance but each one is important none the same.

1. Do you like the person?

This is usually the number one trait need to be successful in politics. Most of the voters must like you personally. If they like you they tend to overlook any faults you may have.


2. Do you trust them?

This is almost as important as the first but it seems in some people's minds it doesn't matter as much as being a winner does. Being trustworthy is important but winning tends to overrule trust in some people's minds.


3. Do they make you feel safe?

I know this is a big one but it is secondary to the other two. It really depends on how you feel about yourself and your place in the world. Do you feel that there are threats out there and if you feel it's the case does it seem like they're on the case? Are you afraid of threats outside the country or within? This will determine who you vote for.


4. Do they listen to you?

It's important to be in touch with the folks. If they give you the impression that they feel they are better then you do you think they will get your vote?


5. Are they competent leaders?

If a politician seems spineless chances are they won't get your vote....but this all depends on what you feel is spineless. Do they stick to their guns? Do they act like they know what they're doing? Do they bend with the wind or stand up to everything that's thrown at them...and take it with class?


6. Do they believe in what you believe?

This one tends to overrule many of the others. It's kind of hard to vote for someone who believes in abortion when you don't. It's also as hard to believe in a politician who likes to raise taxes when you feel you're overtaxed already.


Now ask yourself these questions. Ask them about Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or anyone else.

If most or not all of the answers are NO then chances are that person is in serious trouble come November. Some people will get only one yes and still vote for a candidate because that trait is more important then all of the others.

Anyone who wants to discuss why the politician in question gets a no or a yes....feel free.

mudwhistle, my POV is that 99% of all folks who choose politics as a livliehood are what are known as "high power image needs" type folks -- yanno, sociopaths?

People who seek after fame a la Hollywoord etc. want Fame.

People who seek after money (to the exclusion of all else) seek to feed their Avarice.

But People who seek after Power are the scariest of them all to me...and we call them POLITICIANS. They are also called Serial Murderers...Confidence Artists...Talk Show Hosts...etc. Not every sociopath is bright and not every one is getting his groove on. As with anything else, some sociopaths fail to acieve their goals.

Bernie Madoff = Ted Bundy = Ronald Reagan = Adam Lambert.

Ever see a Betty Davis movie called "All About Eve"? It's the story of how many lives one chick is willing to destroy to achieve her goal of being famous and the creepy way she cloaks her bad behaviors and black heart. And that is sociopathy -- a zero ability to/interest in the effect any action one takes does/may affect others. The ONLY test a sociopath puts a plan through is "Will This Work?"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6m37ddd2Sc]YouTube - All About Eve (1950) Trailer[/ame]

I will admit to having the blinding sensation that Obama was the Second Coming of MLK Jr., whom I deeply loved and still grieve for. But leaving aside my ability to succumb to bullshit and misdirection....

threecardmontewallet.jpg


When a politican is a person who, in college or thereabouts, chooses politics over say, cancer research or landscape gardening, as his path/goal in life, IMO that's a person with a craven need to be able to influence and control others. I happen to have seen politicianss in their natural environment, up close and personal, when they relaxed behind closed doors, etc. Not one single damned one of them would hesitate to chew through a carpet of babies to get at what they REALLY seek -- POWER.

I vote for the candidate whose platforms and campaign telegraph to me that he will be the one least likely to harm me. In Obama's case, he telegraghed to me that not only would he not harm me, he'd actually advance some issues of social justice I hold dear.

I should have known better. I was naieve, but mudwhsitle, what excuse is here for naievete' in one's mid-50's?

Anyone who worships at the altar of a man or woman on the political stage -- as opposed to merely joining the candidate's posse and getting such rewards as access and the ability to force them to listen to you -- will someday enjoy the same uncomfy burining senation I have now.

Heartburn.

These are very appealing monsters. The key is to always remember that one must take care in interacting with monsters not to be bitten...or chewed through. The power-mad are very different from you and me, mudwhistle. We look at whom our actions will harm and place limits on ourselves accordingly. The Power-Mongers do not.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF4BxBdcd7Y]YouTube - The happy Monsters Band[/ame]

Why did you put Ronald Reagan in with Ted Bundy?

A word of advice. Try to keep your posts a bit smaller because it's hard to read all of the stuff you just posted. Most people don't have enough patience to read it all.

One point you made that I don't agree with....about every politician being the same. At least that's the impression you gave me. I don't believe that is the case....however the system is the problem here....not so much the candidates. Some of them sacrifice their soul for power and some of them sacrifice their principles to gain office. If you don't you can't make it....because of the political system we have.

I really have a problem with your lumping Ted Bundy, Berry Madoff, and Ronald Reagan together. It is so wrong.
 
Last edited:
Ditto what Mudwhistle said. The large colored type is annoying and really difficult to read. Much easier to deal with in a more reasonable font.
 
While your anecdote is interesting, it does not refute existing personnel security standards. The United States Government does not include guilt-by-association as disqualifying. It is the actions of the subject, not the actions of his associates, that may be disqualifying. Neither Obama's friendships nor visits are disqualifying criteria according to the personnel security standards of the United States Government. Please READ the security clearance information provided by the government. Please READ the St. Petersberg Times debunking of this myth.

Frank Marshall Davis's son, who lived with Davis until he joined the military, retired as an Air Force Intelligence Officer (TS/SCI). Obviously his father's FBI file was NOT disqualifying. If this long-term association is not disqualifying, what makes you think that any short-term acquaintance or friendship is disqualifying?

Unfortunately you seem to misrepresent speculation as fact once again. I challenge you to prove that Obama's FRIENDS "committed violent acts against the United States." Proof must consist of empirical evidence (not speculation) that such people actually were "friends," and that they "committed violent acts against the United States." Ayers, for example, was a professional associate. Please prove that they actually were "friends." Please do the same for any other such "friends."

Please provide empirical evidence (not speculation) that an actual "goal" of ACORN "is the peaceful overthrow of the government and to cause economic turmoil." The goals of ACORN are clearly documented at acorn.org.

FYI: "Peaceful overthrow" may be an oxymoron, because the only way our government could be overthrown is by force. If change is peaceful, then it is a hardly qualifies as an "overthrow."

The personnel security standards consider membership in organizations devoted to VIOLENT overthrow, not "peaceful overthrow," to be disqualifying. Causing "economic turmoil" is not a disqualifying factor, nor is training ACORN members.

Further, what "visits to terrorist states" do you consider disqualifying?

BTW: I welcome the opportunity to debate these issues in a cordial manner.

"The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth." - William O. Douglas

Yes...and I think you can't tell the truth from fiction.

Your problem is you refuse to look at the facts.

Frank Davis may have been the father of an Air force Officer that held a TS-SCI clearance (By the way that was what I was given) but being the son of such a person does not mean you can't get a clearance. It just means that you will be investigated because of it. Let me assure you if anything had been found during that investigation that would have prevented him from getting one he never would have recieved one.

I think you need to read about "Project Vote" and "Camp Obama" if they haven't already been deleted from the internet. All the proof is there about "peaceful overthrow of the government" and Obama's avid belief in it.

Look those two up. Google them or look on Yahoo. I suggest Yahoo.

I can't tell you anything. Judging from the past most folks like you can't be shown the evidence and believe it. Just look for yourself. I'm done talking to you.

Sorry, but I checked all five links but found no evidence regarding overthrow of the government. Please QUOTE the exact statements that support your claim. Changing official policy does not constitute "overthrow" of a government.

Your claim that Davis's son would be investigated because of it is wrong. ALL TS candidates are subject to background investigations, not just those with questionable associations. Further, if anything is found during that investigation that would have prevented anyone from getting one, then anyone never would have recieved one. This applies to all candidates, not just Davis's son. Once again, it is the actions of the subject, not the actions of the subject's associates or relatives, that could prevent granting of a clearance.

Your statement "Obama's close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind" seems to conflict with your claim that "being the son of such a person does not mean you can't get a clearance." How would the sporadic contact outlined in "Dreams" be more disqualifying than growing up with Davis, especially considering Obama's limited contact after the age of 16?

I am still awaiting:

1. Evidence to support your claims of Obama's "friendship" with Ayers, Soros, or Rezco
2. The names of Obma's friends that committed violent acts against the U.S.
3. Evidence of Obama's visits to terrorist states
4. Evidence that Wright is a "racist"
5. Evidence that an ACORN goal is the peaceful overthrow of our government
6. Evidence that Obama had an "avid belief" in peaceful overthrow of our government.
7. Evidence that an ACORN goal is causing economic turmoil
8. Evidence that Obama's "close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind." Activity younger than 16 is specifically excluded from consideration. According to "Dreams," Obma visited Davis only once before leaving for college.

BTW: It's rather ironic that you chose Mr. Spock as your avatar, because your allegations are illogical.

"The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth."
- Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)

This is a case of taking the horse to water.....

It's impossible to force you to see the truth. I guess you'll just have to find out the hard way just like every other Obamamanic. I'm not gonna spoonfeed everything to you. You should be smart enough to figure it out for yourself...but you can't.

What you've done is scanned the pages looking for the words overthrow the government and couldn't find it...so that to you means it's not there even though every other way of expressing it is there.

You're an idiot. Fuck off.
 
Last edited:
How about a reluctance to be a leader? Feeling that they must for the greater good, and not for themselves?

I'm always suspicious of those who have seemingly geared their whole life for a run at the top spot.


Indeed. Career politicians should be an oxymoron.

8. Do they have a life/career outside of politics to which they will return?

9. Do they have a sense of humility as an individual and a sense of respect for the office of the Presidency to which they want to live up?

10. Do they actually like average Americans?

11. Do they have any significant Executive Management experience?
 
Last edited:
When it comes to honesty....here are some things I'm sure you've forgotten.

Obama made several promises.

But the reality is this:

We are not any closer to closing GITMO.

We aren't out of Iraq.

Illegal Immigration has been put on the back burner till 2011.

What we are doing is taking over the private sector like Hugo Chavez did. The media is too biased to be trusted. Banks and companies are now under the thumb of the Democrats. Nearly 9 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office and no effort is being made to create any outside of the government. Divisions have been purposely caused to pit American against American. The only promise that Obama has fulfilled is he is punishing the rich.....unless they supported him or are his personal friends. And even some of them are catching hell.


Don't forget that he promised he would raise ANY taxes on people making less than $250K per year.
 
Did you complain about the czars before Obama? Or did they only upset you once Obama became President?

By the way, "Czar" is the Russian transliteration of "Caeser".


I've NEVER liked the term Czar for political appointees.
 
In all honesty I truly believe that the last trait is all that matters to the left when you really get down to it.
.....And, "conservatives" prefer the First....

1. Do you like the person?

....which prompted them to elect the neighborhood-drunk (for President), in 2000.

:rolleyes:

Better then being one of the Coke-heads hanging out in the school halls smoking cigs. as in Obama's case or the spoiled closet pole-smoker that made millions off of the Global Warming hoax....as in Al Gore's case.

Funny, Obama got a Nobel Prize for doing nothing...and Gore got one for carrying out the biggest ecological scam in history. Yup....those are great alternatives when you compare them to a recovering alcoholic.

Wonder if you believe in redemption bud?
 
Last edited:
Yes...and I think you can't tell the truth from fiction.

Your problem is you refuse to look at the facts.

Frank Davis may have been the father of an Air force Officer that held a TS-SCI clearance (By the way that was what I was given) but being the son of such a person does not mean you can't get a clearance. It just means that you will be investigated because of it. Let me assure you if anything had been found during that investigation that would have prevented him from getting one he never would have recieved one.

I think you need to read about "Project Vote" and "Camp Obama" if they haven't already been deleted from the internet. All the proof is there about "peaceful overthrow of the government" and Obama's avid belief in it.

Look those two up. Google them or look on Yahoo. I suggest Yahoo.

I can't tell you anything. Judging from the past most folks like you can't be shown the evidence and believe it. Just look for yourself. I'm done talking to you.

Sorry, but I checked all five links but found no evidence regarding overthrow of the government. Please QUOTE the exact statements that support your claim. Changing official policy does not constitute "overthrow" of a government.

Your claim that Davis's son would be investigated because of it is wrong. ALL TS candidates are subject to background investigations, not just those with questionable associations. Further, if anything is found during that investigation that would have prevented anyone from getting one, then anyone never would have recieved one. This applies to all candidates, not just Davis's son. Once again, it is the actions of the subject, not the actions of the subject's associates or relatives, that could prevent granting of a clearance.

Your statement "Obama's close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind" seems to conflict with your claim that "being the son of such a person does not mean you can't get a clearance." How would the sporadic contact outlined in "Dreams" be more disqualifying than growing up with Davis, especially considering Obama's limited contact after the age of 16?

I am still awaiting:

1. Evidence to support your claims of Obama's "friendship" with Ayers, Soros, or Rezco
2. The names of Obma's friends that committed violent acts against the U.S.
3. Evidence of Obama's visits to terrorist states
4. Evidence that Wright is a "racist"
5. Evidence that an ACORN goal is the peaceful overthrow of our government
6. Evidence that Obama had an "avid belief" in peaceful overthrow of our government.
7. Evidence that an ACORN goal is causing economic turmoil
8. Evidence that Obama's "close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind." Activity younger than 16 is specifically excluded from consideration. According to "Dreams," Obma visited Davis only once before leaving for college.

BTW: It's rather ironic that you chose Mr. Spock as your avatar, because your allegations are illogical.

"The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth."
- Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)

This is a case of taking the horse to water.....

It's impossible to force you to see the truth. I guess you'll just have to find out the hard way just like every other Obamamanic. I'm not gonna spoonfeed everything to you. You should be smart enough to figure it out for yourself...but you can't.

What you've done is scanned the pages looking for the words overthrow the government and couldn't find it...so that to you means it's not there even though every other way of expressing it is there.

You're an idiot. Fuck off.

Alas, poor Mudwhistle, it appears that the urbandictionary.com definition of "Mudwhistle" definitely applies to our delusional friend. My condolences! If anyone else can quote any empirical evidence (not speculation) that supports Mudwhistle's unsubstantiated claims (above), then please help her out.

Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the right-wing blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking.

It's a pity that blogosphere researchers and commentators are not held to similar high standards of accuracy. It's a pity that their fans consider clearly documented misrepresentation to be insignificant as long as it confirms their biases. It's a pity that such predisposition to believing disinformation can be exploited just as easily by Accuracy In Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid as it was by the Bush administration in selling the Iraqi threat. Even today, when all of the false evidence supporting Iraqi WMD stockpiles has been clearly debunked, Bush loyalists may insist their conclusions were true despite the lack of evidence.

Sure, Saddam used WMD in the 1980s, but the claim that he was an actual threat to the United States in the 21st century was based on false evidence. It was a deliberate misrepresentation (i.e., a lie). Sure, Edgar Tidwell provided credible evidence that Frank Marshall Davis joined the CPUSA during WWII, but the claim that "his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a Soviet agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin"[1] is based on false evidence. It is deliberate misrepresentation (i.e., a lie).

As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A. in 1989, I am familiar with political disinformation. I am familiar with disinformation campaigns, including Pope Gregory's misrepresentation of Mary Magdalene, Russian and German misrepresentation of Judaism, Operation Fortitude protecting the D-Day invasion, Operation Left Hook protecting the coalition drive into Kuwait, and the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat this century.

This disinformation campaign fits the pattern epitomized by "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," in which targets are smeared through deliberate misrepresentation. In both cases master propagandists falsely claimed that works of fiction were authentic accounts of their targets, in order to provoke further attacks. Both cases depended upon gullible members of the general population, who were predisposed to believing such disinformation, and who could be counted upon to spread such smears even further.

In the absence of credible evidence, both cases fail miserably under close scrutiny. As cesspools of slander, innuendo, and trumped-up charges, such unsubstantiated accusations reflect the perverse nature of their accusers more than their targets.

Could someone back poor Mudwhistle up before she starts to cry?


"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
- Bible, John 8:32
 
Considering that the Obama Administration declared Fertilizer and Propane to be WMDs today, Bush is off the hook on the WMD thing from now on.

Just sayin'.
 
Sorry, but I checked all five links but found no evidence regarding overthrow of the government. Please QUOTE the exact statements that support your claim. Changing official policy does not constitute "overthrow" of a government.

Your claim that Davis's son would be investigated because of it is wrong. ALL TS candidates are subject to background investigations, not just those with questionable associations. Further, if anything is found during that investigation that would have prevented anyone from getting one, then anyone never would have recieved one. This applies to all candidates, not just Davis's son. Once again, it is the actions of the subject, not the actions of the subject's associates or relatives, that could prevent granting of a clearance.

Your statement "Obama's close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind" seems to conflict with your claim that "being the son of such a person does not mean you can't get a clearance." How would the sporadic contact outlined in "Dreams" be more disqualifying than growing up with Davis, especially considering Obama's limited contact after the age of 16?

I am still awaiting:

1. Evidence to support your claims of Obama's "friendship" with Ayers, Soros, or Rezco
2. The names of Obma's friends that committed violent acts against the U.S.
3. Evidence of Obama's visits to terrorist states
4. Evidence that Wright is a "racist"
5. Evidence that an ACORN goal is the peaceful overthrow of our government
6. Evidence that Obama had an "avid belief" in peaceful overthrow of our government.
7. Evidence that an ACORN goal is causing economic turmoil
8. Evidence that Obama's "close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind." Activity younger than 16 is specifically excluded from consideration. According to "Dreams," Obma visited Davis only once before leaving for college.

BTW: It's rather ironic that you chose Mr. Spock as your avatar, because your allegations are illogical.

"The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth."
- Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)

This is a case of taking the horse to water.....

It's impossible to force you to see the truth. I guess you'll just have to find out the hard way just like every other Obamamanic. I'm not gonna spoonfeed everything to you. You should be smart enough to figure it out for yourself...but you can't.

What you've done is scanned the pages looking for the words overthrow the government and couldn't find it...so that to you means it's not there even though every other way of expressing it is there.

You're an idiot. Fuck off.

Alas, poor Mudwhistle, it appears that the urbandictionary.com definition of "Mudwhistle" definitely applies to our delusional friend. My condolences! If anyone else can quote any empirical evidence (not speculation) that supports Mudwhistle's unsubstantiated claims (above), then please help her out.

Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the right-wing blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking.

It's a pity that blogosphere researchers and commentators are not held to similar high standards of accuracy. It's a pity that their fans consider clearly documented misrepresentation to be insignificant as long as it confirms their biases. It's a pity that such predisposition to believing disinformation can be exploited just as easily by Accuracy In Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid as it was by the Bush administration in selling the Iraqi threat. Even today, when all of the false evidence supporting Iraqi WMD stockpiles has been clearly debunked, Bush loyalists may insist their conclusions were true despite the lack of evidence.

Sure, Saddam used WMD in the 1980s, but the claim that he was an actual threat to the United States in the 21st century was based on false evidence. It was a deliberate misrepresentation (i.e., a lie). Sure, Edgar Tidwell provided credible evidence that Frank Marshall Davis joined the CPUSA during WWII, but the claim that "his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a Soviet agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin"[1] is based on false evidence. It is deliberate misrepresentation (i.e., a lie).

As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A. in 1989, I am familiar with political disinformation. I am familiar with disinformation campaigns, including Pope Gregory's misrepresentation of Mary Magdalene, Russian and German misrepresentation of Judaism, Operation Fortitude protecting the D-Day invasion, Operation Left Hook protecting the coalition drive into Kuwait, and the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat this century.

This disinformation campaign fits the pattern epitomized by "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," in which targets are smeared through deliberate misrepresentation. In both cases master propagandists falsely claimed that works of fiction were authentic accounts of their targets, in order to provoke further attacks. Both cases depended upon gullible members of the general population, who were predisposed to believing such disinformation, and who could be counted upon to spread such smears even further.

In the absence of credible evidence, both cases fail miserably under close scrutiny. As cesspools of slander, innuendo, and trumped-up charges, such unsubstantiated accusations reflect the perverse nature of their accusers more than their targets.

Could someone back poor Mudwhistle up before she starts to cry?


"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
- Bible, John 8:32

Yes...disinformation.....the same kind Obama is using everyday in the MSM. One thing that makes it most effective is prejudicing the minds of your target audience to the point where they simply refuse to believe anything that goes against their core beliefs regardless of the validity. They play on your beliefs in stereotypes, your natural discriminatory habits. They use your own prejudices against you. They appeal to your lessor instincts...such as hatred, envy, whatever compels you.

Retired Air Force Intel officer, huh?

I always wonder sometimes the motivations of those who have served in uniform to support Democrats. It just doesn't make alot of sense.

Everything they stand for is against those of us who served our country.

So why does someone who served in the military support someone who hates your guts...hates everything you once stood for?

Are you Gay?

Are you Black?

Who knows what the reason is. Why someone with your intelligence can't see the writing on the walls. There usually is a logical reason that you constantly throw away common sense and mindlessly follow this skinny prick and try desperately to discount the facts against him. There has to be.

Maybe the simple fact that you were an officer makes it impossible to use common-sense. I've often wondered about that. I even went through the OCS selection process and decided it wasn't for me. My cousin was a Colonel in the Air Force. He's no expert on anything other then his job. I wouldn't go to him for advice about anything.
 
Last edited:
This is a case of taking the horse to water.....

It's impossible to force you to see the truth. I guess you'll just have to find out the hard way just like every other Obamamanic. I'm not gonna spoonfeed everything to you. You should be smart enough to figure it out for yourself...but you can't.

What you've done is scanned the pages looking for the words overthrow the government and couldn't find it...so that to you means it's not there even though every other way of expressing it is there.

You're an idiot. Fuck off.

Alas, poor Mudwhistle, it appears that the urbandictionary.com definition of "Mudwhistle" definitely applies to our delusional friend. My condolences! If anyone else can quote any empirical evidence (not speculation) that supports Mudwhistle's unsubstantiated claims (above), then please help her out.

Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the right-wing blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking.

It's a pity that blogosphere researchers and commentators are not held to similar high standards of accuracy. It's a pity that their fans consider clearly documented misrepresentation to be insignificant as long as it confirms their biases. It's a pity that such predisposition to believing disinformation can be exploited just as easily by Accuracy In Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid as it was by the Bush administration in selling the Iraqi threat. Even today, when all of the false evidence supporting Iraqi WMD stockpiles has been clearly debunked, Bush loyalists may insist their conclusions were true despite the lack of evidence.

Sure, Saddam used WMD in the 1980s, but the claim that he was an actual threat to the United States in the 21st century was based on false evidence. It was a deliberate misrepresentation (i.e., a lie). Sure, Edgar Tidwell provided credible evidence that Frank Marshall Davis joined the CPUSA during WWII, but the claim that "his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a Soviet agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin"[1] is based on false evidence. It is deliberate misrepresentation (i.e., a lie).

As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A. in 1989, I am familiar with political disinformation. I am familiar with disinformation campaigns, including Pope Gregory's misrepresentation of Mary Magdalene, Russian and German misrepresentation of Judaism, Operation Fortitude protecting the D-Day invasion, Operation Left Hook protecting the coalition drive into Kuwait, and the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat this century.

This disinformation campaign fits the pattern epitomized by "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," in which targets are smeared through deliberate misrepresentation. In both cases master propagandists falsely claimed that works of fiction were authentic accounts of their targets, in order to provoke further attacks. Both cases depended upon gullible members of the general population, who were predisposed to believing such disinformation, and who could be counted upon to spread such smears even further.

In the absence of credible evidence, both cases fail miserably under close scrutiny. As cesspools of slander, innuendo, and trumped-up charges, such unsubstantiated accusations reflect the perverse nature of their accusers more than their targets.

Could someone back poor Mudwhistle up before she starts to cry?


"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
- Bible, John 8:32

Yes...disinformation.....the same kind Obama is using everyday in the MSM. One thing that makes it most effective is prejudicing the minds of your target audience to the point where they will believe nothing that goes against their core beliefs regardless of the validity.

Retired Air Force Intel officer, huh?

I always wonder sometimes the motivations of those who have served in uniform to support Democrats. It just doesn't make alot of sense.

Everything they stand for is against those of us who served our country.

So why does someone who served in the military support someone who hates your guts...hates everything you once stood for?

Are you Gay?

Are you Black?

Who knows what the reason is. Why someone with your intelligence can't see the writing on the walls. There usually is a logical reason that you constantly throw away common sense and mindlessly follow this skinny prick and try desperately to discount the facts against him. There has to be.

Maybe the simple fact that you were an officer makes it impossible to use common-sense. I've often wondered about that. I even went through the OCS selection process and decided it wasn't for me. My cousin was a Colonel in the Air Force. He's no expert on anything other then his job. I wouldn't go to him for advice about anything.

I support the truth and refute lies regardless of their sources. For example, critics who claimed that Bush could have prevented 9/11 are on the same delusional trip as critics lying about Obama. I requested your "facts" about him, but you have declined to provide SPECIFIC evidence to support your allegations. As they say on CSI: "Follow the evidence"!

BTW: What does my race or orientation have to do with the debate? What makes you think Obama hates my guts and everything I stood for? More jumping to conclusions? People who easily jump to conclusions are easy prey for disinformation campaigns. People with common sense, on the other hand, are more likely to avoid faulty generalizations.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)
 
Alas, poor Mudwhistle, it appears that the urbandictionary.com definition of "Mudwhistle" definitely applies to our delusional friend. My condolences! If anyone else can quote any empirical evidence (not speculation) that supports Mudwhistle's unsubstantiated claims (above), then please help her out.

Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the right-wing blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking.

It's a pity that blogosphere researchers and commentators are not held to similar high standards of accuracy. It's a pity that their fans consider clearly documented misrepresentation to be insignificant as long as it confirms their biases. It's a pity that such predisposition to believing disinformation can be exploited just as easily by Accuracy In Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid as it was by the Bush administration in selling the Iraqi threat. Even today, when all of the false evidence supporting Iraqi WMD stockpiles has been clearly debunked, Bush loyalists may insist their conclusions were true despite the lack of evidence.

Sure, Saddam used WMD in the 1980s, but the claim that he was an actual threat to the United States in the 21st century was based on false evidence. It was a deliberate misrepresentation (i.e., a lie). Sure, Edgar Tidwell provided credible evidence that Frank Marshall Davis joined the CPUSA during WWII, but the claim that "his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a Soviet agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin"[1] is based on false evidence. It is deliberate misrepresentation (i.e., a lie).

As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A. in 1989, I am familiar with political disinformation. I am familiar with disinformation campaigns, including Pope Gregory's misrepresentation of Mary Magdalene, Russian and German misrepresentation of Judaism, Operation Fortitude protecting the D-Day invasion, Operation Left Hook protecting the coalition drive into Kuwait, and the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat this century.

This disinformation campaign fits the pattern epitomized by "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," in which targets are smeared through deliberate misrepresentation. In both cases master propagandists falsely claimed that works of fiction were authentic accounts of their targets, in order to provoke further attacks. Both cases depended upon gullible members of the general population, who were predisposed to believing such disinformation, and who could be counted upon to spread such smears even further.

In the absence of credible evidence, both cases fail miserably under close scrutiny. As cesspools of slander, innuendo, and trumped-up charges, such unsubstantiated accusations reflect the perverse nature of their accusers more than their targets.

Could someone back poor Mudwhistle up before she starts to cry?


"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
- Bible, John 8:32

Yes...disinformation.....the same kind Obama is using everyday in the MSM. One thing that makes it most effective is prejudicing the minds of your target audience to the point where they will believe nothing that goes against their core beliefs regardless of the validity.

Retired Air Force Intel officer, huh?

I always wonder sometimes the motivations of those who have served in uniform to support Democrats. It just doesn't make alot of sense.

Everything they stand for is against those of us who served our country.

So why does someone who served in the military support someone who hates your guts...hates everything you once stood for?

Are you Gay?

Are you Black?

Who knows what the reason is. Why someone with your intelligence can't see the writing on the walls. There usually is a logical reason that you constantly throw away common sense and mindlessly follow this skinny prick and try desperately to discount the facts against him. There has to be.

Maybe the simple fact that you were an officer makes it impossible to use common-sense. I've often wondered about that. I even went through the OCS selection process and decided it wasn't for me. My cousin was a Colonel in the Air Force. He's no expert on anything other then his job. I wouldn't go to him for advice about anything.

I support the truth and refute lies regardless of their sources. For example, critics who claimed that Bush could have prevented 9/11 are on the same delusional trip as critics lying about Obama. I requested your "facts" about him, but you have declined to provide SPECIFIC evidence to support your allegations. As they say on CSI: "Follow the evidence"!

BTW: What does my race or orientation have to do with the debate? What makes you think Obama hates my guts and everything I stood for? More jumping to conclusions? People who easily jump to conclusions are easy prey for disinformation campaigns. People with common sense, on the other hand, are more likely to avoid faulty generalizations.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

I provided what proof is available....problem is you can't see what's there. I declined nothing.

Your race has everything to do with it in this case. Being Black would make you unreasonably biased.

Your sexual orientation pretty much makes you lean one way or another. I hope you're not gonna try to convince me that Gays love the GOP because I ain't buying it.

Jumping to conclusions are usually something you do when you don't have any facts. That is not the case here. I've been reading about this guy for a couple of years. Just read his books if you want to know what makes him tick. His own words convict him.

For someone who seems to love the truth you sure as hell can't recognize it when you see it.
 
You have provided the proof only when you QUOTE substantiating documents! That is the essence of proof! Didn't you go to school?
 
payn090921_01_cmyk20090921093553.jpg


There are many traits that we all look for and admire in our leaders. If they don't have these traits then the chances are they won't win and they'll have to go to work like the rest of us. These traits are not listed in order of importance but each one is important none the same.

1. Do you like the person?

This is usually the number one trait need to be successful in politics. Most of the voters must like you personally. If they like you they tend to overlook any faults you may have.


2. Do you trust them?

This is almost as important as the first but it seems in some people's minds it doesn't matter as much as being a winner does. Being trustworthy is important but winning tends to overrule trust in some people's minds.


3. Do they make you feel safe?

I know this is a big one but it is secondary to the other two. It really depends on how you feel about yourself and your place in the world. Do you feel that there are threats out there and if you feel it's the case does it seem like they're on the case? Are you afraid of threats outside the country or within? This will determine who you vote for.


4. Do they listen to you?

It's important to be in touch with the folks. If they give you the impression that they feel they are better then you do you think they will get your vote?


5. Are they competent leaders?

If a politician seems spineless chances are they won't get your vote....but this all depends on what you feel is spineless. Do they stick to their guns? Do they act like they know what they're doing? Do they bend with the wind or stand up to everything that's thrown at them...and take it with class?


6. Do they believe in what you believe?

This one tends to overrule many of the others. It's kind of hard to vote for someone who believes in abortion when you don't. It's also as hard to believe in a politician who likes to raise taxes when you feel you're overtaxed already.


Now ask yourself these questions. Ask them about Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or anyone else.

If most or not all of the answers are NO then chances are that person is in serious trouble come November. Some people will get only one yes and still vote for a candidate because that trait is more important then all of the others.

Anyone who wants to discuss why the politician in question gets a no or a yes....feel free.
1. People vote for people they like. That's why Reagan, Clinton, and Obama were elected. That's why I think Obama will get a second term. He is more popular than any of his legislation. Whether you like him or not, you have to admit the guy has a lot of charisma.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top