Democrats Do Not Care About What You Want

Let me say it up front so that the liberals can get their pink panties in a wad. Barack Obama and his Democrats do not care about what the public wants and they are not concerned about health care being provided for all. In fact, they do not want a debate on any of this and any meetings set up by Obama are window dressing. These are phony exercises so that he and his henchmen can claim they worked in a bipartisan manner. This is a ruse designed to make people think they got the message of the Scott Brown election in Massachusetts.

The administration is working on plans to merge the Senate bill with the House bill and then to pass it under the process of reconciliation which would only require a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate. This entire process is designed to bypass the proper way to do business and to ram through legislation that America does not want. The Senate is supposed to be the tough chamber and is designed to slow the process and keep sanity in government.

The health care legislation is not about health and it is not about care. It is about government control over the population and over a huge portion of our economy and Barack and his henchmen are preparing to ram it though with no regard for what the people want and with little regard for the process that governs the way things are done in the Congress. This is Chicago politics and it is not the way to do business.

The Democrats are working on a way to ram this through after they have their phony meetings with Republicans so they can claim that they worked together. The Democrats crafted the legislation they have now with the millions of dollars of graft and corruption and all the payoffs just to get this far and they will not stop because of something like opposition by the American people.

These people have a radical agenda and they want to turn America into a Socialist nation. The White House library has all kinds of books about Socialism and those books were selected by Michelle Obama.*** These people are radicals and they do not care how they get things done just as long as they get what they want. Keep in mind that Obama told us he was willing to listen to all ideas and claimed that Republicans did not offer any when in fact they did. At the Republican retreat in Baltimore Obama held it [Republican health care plan] up and said he had read it. He showed that he lied when he said that they had not offered any ideas. He will lie to get what he wants. He is a radical and must be stopped.

We need to stop them all. It is time to call the vulnerable Democrats and remind them just who it is they work for. It is time to make sure EVERY Republican votes against this mess. It is time to remind these people that they will be out of a job in November if they are a party to this.

This is not how our country is designed to work. The Democrats are crafting legislation that is opposed by a majority of Americans. Don’t fall for the claim that a majority wants health care reform because that is true but they do not want THIS reform.

If Obama and the Democrats are serious about working together they will stop lying to America and will start with a blank sheet of paper.

Some of these Democrats do not care because they are either not running for reelection or are planning not to run. We need to remind them that we will boycott anything they are involved in if they vote for this as a parting shot to America. We need to let them know that they will not be successful when they leave office if they vote for this. We need to have bus loads of people driving past their houses and showing them the same anger ACORN showed AIG employees.

In short, we need to destroy anyone who votes for this mess especially if they do it under reconciliation.

I predict that if this proceeds in this fashion the Democrats will lose the House and the Senate in November and by large enough margins that Obama will be stifled for his last two years in office.

So ignore the phony shows and watch the Obama behind the curtain because he is working on getting his radical agenda passed regardless of what you want.

Remember America, DESTROY those who vote for this.

Democrats, you dance on puppet master Obama’s strings at your own peril.

***UPDATE: Evidently the tour guide at the White House said that the First Lady selected the books for the library without mentioning that the First Lady he was talking about was Mrs. Kennedy. The person who originally reported on this took it to mean the current first lady. It would seem a tour guide might be a bit clearer.

This does not take away from the fact that the current administration is full of radicals who want to bring Socialism to our country as its form of government. The history of the Obamas is rife with their Socialist beliefs and this is what he wants to fundamentally transform this nation to.

Also notice that liberals will focus on the mistake made from a tour guide’s information rather than the actual subject of the Dems circumventing the process to pass a very unpopular piece of legislation.

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

52 Responses to “Democrats Do Not Care About What You Want”

  1. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “The White House library has all kinds of books about Socialism and those books were selected by Michelle Obama.”>>

    DAR
    The LA Times:

    “When conservative Rob Port took a tour of the White House this week, he was scandalized by the books he found on shelves in the White House library. “Photo Evidence: Michelle Obama Keeps Socialist Books in the White House Library,” he blogged. He took a photo of the books in question, which includes “The American Socialist Movement 1897-1912” by Ira Kipnis (1952) and “The Social Basis of American Communism” by Nathan Glazer (1961).

    Well, it was a first lady who put those books there, the Washington Post reports, but it wasn’t Michelle Obama. It was Jacqueline Kennedy, who was known for the care and attention she gave to outfitting the White House; she hired Yale’s librarian to stock it for her.

    The books Port photographed have been sitting in the library since 1963.”

    LA Times.

    D.

    • Big Dog says:

      Just more proof that Democrats have been Socialists for a long time.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Just more proof that Democrats have been Socialists for a long time.”>>

      DAR
      Is it inappropriate for a library to contain such books? No. It would be inappropriate if it didn’t. Especially if these books were censored to protect some view of the world that can’t stand on it’s on (I trust capitalism can).

      It is inappropriate for you to spread false information and if you cared about truth you would correct your false charges.

      D.
      —————-
      “Are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule of what we are to read, and what we must disbelieve?
      If M. de Becourt’s book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God’s sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose.

      (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to N. G. Dufief, Philadelphia bookseller, 1814, on the occasion of prosecution for selling De Becourt’s “Sur le CrŽation du Monde, un Systme d’Organisation Primitive”; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371)

  2. Big Dog says:

    It is appropriate for any books they want to be there and the selection might say a lot about the people who select them.

    Are you dense or do you just like to spread false charges yourself? I corrected the post as soon as I read your link. This post was written a day or so ago and set to publish today. Unfortunately I did not see the update on the story that was published until you pointed it out.

    I made no false charges, I reported what I had read and have since corrected the mistaken information.

    Perhaps you should check before you take the high and mighty road. Perhaps you have written to your global warming friends to demand that if they cared about the truth they would change their false reports or to Obama that if he cared about the truth he would not lie about the process of health care.

    You throw charges at me and have no idea of what you are speaking. Yes, all it would have taken is for you to look to see if the page had been updated before you leveled your false information. Correct yourself, how about that?

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “I reported what I had read and have since corrected the mistaken information.”>>

      DAR
      Good job. Do people who receive these by email get the updated version, or just the erroneous one? Just wondering.

      Bigd: “…do you just like to spread false charges yourself?”

      DAR
      Nothing false in my claim. I said: “…if you cared about truth you would correct your false charges.” Since you have made the correction, this speaks well of you “caring about truth.” Good job.

      Bigd: “You throw charges at me and have no idea of what you are speaking.”>>

      DAR
      The only thing I “charged” was that this was incorrect. And it was. I said “if” you cared about truth you would correct it. You did.

      Bigd [update]: “The person who originally reported on this took it to mean the current first lady. It would seem a tour guide might be a bit clearer.”>>

      DAR
      This bit about it being the fault of the tour guide? Not buying it. Your source is blinded with ideology and didn’t check her facts.

      Bigd: “Perhaps you have written to your global warming friends to demand that if they cared about the truth they would change their false reports”>>

      DAR
      They’re scientists, so they have found and corrected these two tiny and inconsequential errors already. That’s what scientists do. They care about truth.

      D.
      ——————
      Excerpt:
      “As far as we’re aware, so far only one–or at most two–legitimate errors have been found in the AR4:

      Himalayan glaciers: In a regional chapter on Asia in Volume 2, written by authors from the region, it was erroneously stated that 80% of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035. This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts (such as our colleague Georg Kaser from Austria, who first discovered the Himalaya error in the WG2 report). There are also several pages on future glacier decline in Chapter 10 (“Global Climate Projections”), where the proper projections are used e.g. to estimate future sea level rise. So the problem here is not that the IPCC’s glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place. Fixing this error involves deleting two sentences on page 493 of the WG2 report.

      Sea level in the Netherlands: The WG2 report states that “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”. This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has now published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding”. It surely will go down as one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by … the Dutch government. In addition, the IPCC notes that there are several definitions of the area below sea level. The Dutch Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60% (below high water level during storms), while others use 30% (below mean sea level). Needless to say, the actual number mentioned in the report has no bearing on any IPCC conclusions and has nothing to do with climate science, and it is questionable whether it should even be counted as an IPCC error.”
      –ibid

  3. Bigdog: Thanks much for the link. I will also update my post on which FLOTUS put the books in the Library, and link back to you.

    The White House Library is not a public library or lending library. It is likely a place to be viewed/toured.

    We must assume that the books placed there are paid for by the taxpayer. We also should assume that books should demonstrate the principles found in the U.S. Constitution. These do not.

    It is a safe bet that a majority of taxpayers do not want to fund books covering the progressive march of Socialism around the world, albeit a failed march – which is likely not mentioned in these selections.

    Obviously the problem Jackie had: she hired a Yale Leftist.

    • Darrel says:

      MAGGIE: “Obviously the problem Jackie had: she hired a Yale Leftist.”>>

      DAR
      Really? Is it even inappropriate to own books that don’t perfectly align with a certain agenda? If you were to look in the libraries of some of your conservative heroes/leaders, would you be offended if they simply owned a book that disagreed with conservative ideas? If so, WOW.

      William Buckley would be spinning in his grave if he could see how the movement he championed has grown to have such disdain for it’s intellect.

      D.
      —————–
      14 Points of fascism

      See especially #11:

      “11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested.”

  4. Adam says:

    Nice. Don’t you love it when the knee-jerk anti-Obama crowd gets caught making fools of themselves and spreading false hoods?

    But let’s remember: Owning a book doesn’t mean you agree with the content or message. If that were true only a couple of people would have bought Sarah Palin’s book.

    • Darrel says:

      ADAM: “Owning a book doesn’t mean you agree with the content or message.”>>

      DAR
      Good point. For instance I have about 35 Bibles and at least a dozen more if you count digital versions.

      D.
      ————-
      Which is a good read BTW (well, parts of it).

      • Adam says:

        Yes, and I own a Koran as well. I must be a terrorist…

        • Big Dog says:

          Can you read it in the native language?

          The guy who wrote the piece updated it and said he either misheard the tour guide or that what was said was misleading.

          Yes Adam, and Obama would not have sold any books.

          Admit it, you are jealous of Palin because she can do more of the manly things in life better than you can. And she has a loving family and great husband. I know those things do not make a good woman to you libs but it is nice to see.

          I do find it funny that this is the knee jerk Obama crowd that makes fools of themselves and the accusation was made by a guy who bought into the Dan Rather phony memos.

          I have not yet read where you said anything about the left wing bloggers who made the big stink and falsely claimed that the guy who flew his plane into a building was a tea party member or a right winger. He was not a tea party member and we do not know what his political ideology was. We do know he was a nut.

          You held on to each false string of accusation against Bush and now claim the high road.

          Priceless.

        • Adam says:

          “Admit it, you are jealous of Palin because she can do more of the manly things in life better than you can.”

          Remember that conversation about the difference between the school yard children and the grown up world of adults discussing ideas? Don’t lose focus and write like a bully on the play ground.

          “…and the accusation was made by a guy who bought into the Dan Rather phony memos.”

          I believed Bush had gone AWOL long before Dan Rather even covered it so I don’t know what you’re talking about if you mean me.

          “You held on to each false string of accusation against Bush and now claim the high road.”

          Nope. I’ve made mistakes. I’ve said wrong things. I’ve made accusations that I can’t back up or believed false things. That’s life. You and your side did it today and I can point and laugh. Maybe you can point and laugh at me tomorrow. I don’t know.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Number 11, neither of which has happened.

    As for me, the books I buy do not tend to be from people with whom I disagree because I do not want my money going to them.

    If I am interested I can get it at the library and read it so they do not get money.

    The Ayers books did well though, under the Obama name.

  6. Adam says:

    It’s not like the health care bill is that unpopular anyway first of all. There hasn’t been a poll in weeks with opposition above 54%. That’s not exactly torch and pitchfork opposition you’re cheering on.

    Second, when you break down that opposition you don’t find the kind of anger for the bill that gets all the talking heads coverage. People want reform. When this bill passes there will be a few days of uproar in the right wing echo-chamber but eventually reality will set in that this bill is not the radical, socializing bill that you regressives lied and said it was.

    It may cost the Dems a few more seats but they’re headed out already. People have already made up their minds for the most part anyway. They’re not sitting around saying “I’ll vote Democrat if they don’t vote for death panels.” It’s a choice now between do the Democrats head into election season having failed in their work or do they go in having succeeded even at the cost of their own jobs.

    • Big Dog says:

      Right Adam, when a Dem thing polls at 51% you act like the country is on fire for it. When it is against it then you act like it is no big deal.

      People want reform but not this reform. You can say what you want but you are wrong about the bill. The people lying to you are the politicians.

      Will you roll over and spread your cheeks some more if they pass it and bad stuff happens? Will you spread them more if your mom and dad are denied care under the plan?

      You bend over easily for government but how easily will you bend over when it involves your loved ones?

      What will happen when the producers decide not to pay for it?

    • Adam says:

      “Right Adam, when a Dem thing polls at 51% you act like the country is on fire for it. When it is against it then you act like it is no big deal.”

      That’s just spin of course on my part. You stared down 70% opposition to Bush and still pretended it was no big deal so I think we both know a think or two about this subject.

      You’re talking like the Democrats passing a health care that bill that little more than half the country opposes is going to ruin the Democrats. You’re kidding yourself if you think that. A large majority want the biggest changes in the bill such as a public option, denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, cost controls, etc.

      The American public can’t help it that your side has lied to them so much that they hate the bill. When the bill passes they’ll see it for what it is and see you for the liars you are.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Dreams of the guy I claim was my father (who abandoned me and momma) and the audacity of a doper.

  8. Big Dog says:

    Adam, can you prove Bush went AWOL? I saw the pay records when they were released and I did not see that. Perhaps you have some kind of proof, form someone who actually knows what he is talking about?

    Yes, I made an error in attributing the books to MO and I corrected the error.

    I don’t recall seeing anything like that from you.

    Adults discussing ideas? Like making a snide comment about Palin’s book and the number purchased? I fail to see how that is an adult conversation piece. It is more along the line of a snipe at someone you do not like. I can’t call it playground bully because I doubt you could bully a snail.

    • Adam says:

      “Adam, can you prove Bush went AWOL?”

      We can go into details about all the issues surrounding real or imagined gaps in Bush’s service record if you like. I’m just saying I didn’t buy into the phony memos and don’t remember thinking much about the whole rather gate mess.

      “Like making a snide comment about Palin’s book and the number purchased?”

      If only my snark directed at Palin was the same as your insult directed at me about my manliness. But I guess when you carry so much water for a person you may actually see an insult on Palin as being directed at you…

  9. Big Dog says:

    Right Adam, when it passes like Socials Security did and then becomes more than it was intended and unsustainable we will see another program that is unconstitutional and costly.

    You guys are leading us down the path of ruin.

    Those things you want can be fixed without 2000+ pages of special interest payouts and we can reform without imposing on the 80%+ of people who are happy with what they have.

    You also fail, as is usual, to see the big difference. The Democrats will be hammered for using a process that is not supposed to be used and for circumventing the way Congress does business in order to avoid a vote. It will be seen as circumventing the will of the people who elected Brown to be the 41st vote.

    THAT is what will ruin the Dems. The bill won’t be as much damage as the process.

    Because if it were any good they could have passed it when they had the votes to do it. They could not get 60 of their own people to agree and had to use bribes to accomplish the bill.

    You all can’t blame it on Republicans though I suspect that Obama will blame it on Bush.

    • Adam says:

      “You also fail, as is usual, to see the big difference.”

      Maybe you’re right about the means for passing it hurting the Dems. I want it passed even at the expense of the Democratic majority though and reconciliation is a legitimate means of doing so even if it will get a negative response.

      “You all can’t blame it on Republicans though I suspect that Obama will blame it on Bush.”

      Just keep joking. When health care passes then there won’t be any reason to blame Bush. Clearly the Republicans haven’t had a lack of ideas, just a lack of realistic ideas. The Democrats and Obama will keep making sure they give the public plenty of chance to find that out.

  10. Big Dog says:

    Those were the Ayers books.

  11. Big Dog says:

    The writer at the Thinker has a PhD so I doubt he is a moron.

    As for the way it is passed, it is legal for budget items only and this is not a budget item.

    The ideas Republicans have had are good ones that fix the problem without affecting everyone. But you, as usual, think government should intrude in everyone’s life.

    It will implode and if they use reconciliation they will shut down government until the next election.

    Won’t it be funny if the next Congress repealed the damned thing?

    • Adam says:

      “The writer at the Thinker has a PhD so I doubt he is a moron.”

      Unless of course the PhD is in economics and it belongs to Paul Krugman, right? Then the PhD doesn’t count I guess.

      No, I know plenty of PhD’s that talk outside their field and get things horribly wrong. Cashill’s PhD doesn’t make up for his lack of actual information to make his case. It is pure speculation. He is associated with World Net Daily which is nothing but a pack of liars and conspiracy theorists. Given the ridiculousness of his theory I’d say he fits right in.

      “But you, as usual, think government should intrude in everyone’s life.”

      You certainly say I think that a lot anyway. I’m not sure that’s true. But maybe you haven’t used the word statist in a while and you’re just itching to.

      “Won’t it be funny if the next Congress repealed the damned thing?”

      Yeah. A real hoot. It will happen right after Congress repeals the other pieces of evil socialism in our society like medicare and social security…

      • Big Dog says:

        Well perhaps they won’t repeal it, if it ever gets passed but there will come a time when people say screw it and don’t pay for it. The government cannot rob me to pay for someone else forever and get away with it. We do not have the money or the means and health care is NOT a right.

        You don’t get a PhD as a moron. What you say later makes you a moron. I guess that for you Krugman (who has been wrong how many times now) is a PhD so what he says is great but the other guy, who used a scientific method to compare and draw the similarities (and used accepted tools), is an idiot who can’t connect any dots.

        Congress could repeal Medicare and SS and we could make them private and they would run better.

        There will come a time when the people say FU and stop paying. There are not enough jails to hold them all and if you take them away who will pay for the unconstitutional health care? I know that many people will find ways to reduce their taxes which is why overseas banks make so much money…

        It will not pass and if it does it will not last. We might have to throw this government out and start with a new one (no matter how we have to throw them out) but we can clean up the mess.

        • Adam says:

          “who has been wrong how many times now”

          You’ve said something similar. I’d be glad to review any cases you find of him being wrong. I’m sure there are cases but you talk like it’s a long list.

          “It will not pass and if it does it will not last.”

          I think the Democrats know better than to let this one slip away.

    • Adam says:

      I guess it is easier to think Ayers wrote Obama’s book when you believe lies about their relationship.

      In realty Obama met Ayers around March 1995 when Obama became chairman of the Annenberg project they worked on together. If you believe they had met before that you’d need some sort of evidence.

      If not, what you’d be saying is Ayers was able to finish the book for Obama based on Obama’s work in progress, have it edited and prepared to be published all in just 4 months since the 1st edition of Dreams from My Father was published in July 1995.

      • Big Dog says:

        And Obama had not met the deadline for the book, Ayers is a writer.

        Also, Obama’s coming out in politics was launched from Ayers’ house.

      • Big Dog says:

        No lies, just facts. Ayers was more than some guy he knew in the neighborhood.

        But it is hard to see these things considering where you have your head.

      • Adam says:

        “Ayers was more than some guy he knew in the neighborhood.”

        Certainly so, that is well established. What’s not established are the other things you list or the dots connected that don’t exist like Ayers writing Obama’s book.

        Don’t ignore my question. Did Obama even meet Ayers before March 1995 or know him enough to ask him to write his book? If so can you prove that? If not did Ayers somehow magically speed up the writing process so that the book was written, edited, designed, marketed, proofed, and published all in a period of 4 months?

        If you don’t know how’s that’s possible to do it so fast then join the club. It took 6 months to get the last Harry Potter book out the door once it was written and that was a rush job. Even if Ayers magically had the book finished in March 1995 when the first known meeting took place then that’s still not enough time to get moving on a book that had been delayed since 1990.

        “But it is hard to see these things considering where you have your head.”

        It’s hard to see your lies no matter where I keep my head.

        • kimspinney says:

          I think you were the inspiration for the book “Arguing with idiots”. It doesn’t do any good when you have an idiot trying to defend an evil one like the one he defends. This piece of filth who never had a job, nor ever wore a uniform outside of it’s party garb. History will show this loser is the worst thing that ever happened to America. And that will soon be a fact.

        • Adam says:

          “This piece of filth who never had a job…”

          Here’s a suggestion. If you’re going to name call at least don’t lie while you’re doing it.

  12. Big Dog says:

    hat you are implying Adam, is that Ayers wrote the book from start to finish. I think, and I believe the linked article also delves into, Obama had a bunch of stuff down, he supplied the information and Ayers used it to write the book so it reads better than an Obama Ape fig leaf poem.

    You ask how Ayers could do all this in a short time, how could Obama go from a guy with 2 horrible poems to his credit to a gifted writer in such a short time? Maybe if he ever published anything in the HLR we could see how he wrote but the only things prior to his books are the poems (if you can call them that).

    • Adam says:

      I’m not saying Ayers had to write it from scratch. I’m just saying that four months is not long enough to finish the novel and send it trough the publishing process. It took about seven months to get Palin’s book finished and published and they were editing that around the clock for days and days to release it in November instead of Spring 2010 like they first planned.

      There is zero evidence to suggest Ayers knew Obama before that date in 1995 so your speculation is weak and does not fit the reality of book publishing in my opinion.

      • Big Dog says:

        Barack Obama and the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers have worked closely together on education reform since 1995, and possibly since 1987. POSSIBLY since 1987 would tend to indicate there is some reason to make that assertion.

        Also interesting

        Obviously if Ayers hosted Obama at his house to kick off his state senate campaign it was not the first time they had met.

        Well, the Obama camp’s current story is that Obama knew nothing about that and that the two men met in 1995. How firm is that date? Well, there was a city-wide push for school reform in 1988. Obama was about to leave for Harvard but…

        “The months passed at a breathless pace, with constant reminders of all the things left undone. We worked with a citywide coalition in support of school reform.”

        Obama’s Developing Communities Project ended up in a the ABCs coalition coordinated by Bill Ayers. Odd that they did not meet.

        Look at this picture and all these 1988 coalitions coordinated by Ayers with Obama’s right there and they did not meet. Odd, isn’t it?

        Yet Obama never met the fellow coordinating this 1988 coalition. And years later, after all his hard work in creating the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Bill Ayers graciously assented to Obama becoming chairman even though the two men had never met, Obama had no background in education, and no one had reviewed Obama’s qualifications with Bill Ayers.

        Odd, very odd…

        • Adam says:

          “POSSIBLY since 1987 would tend to indicate there is some reason to make that assertion.”

          If only “possibly”, even written in all caps, meant something solid. Saying so doesn’t make it true. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest Obama met Ayers before 1995.

          “Obviously if Ayers hosted Obama at his house to kick off his state senate campaign it was not the first time they had met.”

          This is simply not true and you know it. Ayers did not host the event for Obama and no one involved claims Ayers even had met Obama before the event. It was hosted at the request of the woman who held the seat Obama would be running for.

          “And years later, after all his hard work in creating the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Bill Ayers graciously assented to Obama becoming chairman even though the two men had never met, Obama had no background in education, and no one had reviewed Obama’s qualifications with Bill Ayers.”

          That paragraph seeks to pretend it is somehow unprecedented in business to give a position to someone you haven’t met based on the advice of a colleague. That is exactly how Obama got the position though. He did not know Ayers but he did know Deborah Leff who was on the board with Ayers.

          But again you are left with only speculation and outright lies. There is no solid proof Ayers had anything at all to do with Obama’s book. There’s not even a hint of proof that Ayers knew Obama before they met in his home. But yet you just keep flinging this poo from the 2008 election hoping it will stick.

  13. Big Dog says:

    Perhaps he could show us the W-2s from the jobs. Not doubting it or anything but he makes many claims and does not back them up with paper.

    Yeah, did he eve have a job where he was in charge?

    • Adam says:

      “Perhaps he could show us the W-2s from the jobs.”

      I’m sure we’d have heard about it by now if he was simply lying about being employed by University of Chicago Law School or Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland.

      “Yeah, did he eve have a job where he was in charge?”

      He was president and chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Of course that one and the examples above probably don’t count, right? There’s all these rules and ideas about real work and real jobs and real leadership that of course is conveniently formed by your side to exclude anything Obama has ever done in his life.

  14. Big Dog says:

    Well Adam, there is evidence that they were involved in the same projects in 1988. Would seem unlikely that they had never met.

    We cannot take either of their word for it because they both have a reason to lie.

    Funny how the smallest shred of suggestion (like the ridiculous argument that Bush was AWOL) is enough for you.

    Downing street memo sent you into a frenzy but it was nothing, how did you put it, conclusive, and was speculation at best but you ran with it.

    • Adam says:

      “…there is evidence that they were involved in the same projects in 1988. Would seem unlikely that they had never met.”

      There were dozens of projects and organizations involved in ABCs. There is no guarantee that Obama would have met Ayers simply because the group was part of the alliance. The bloggers you cite are speculating based in faulty assumptions and leaping to conclusions not supported by any real evidence.

      “Funny how the smallest shred of suggestion …”

      Funny how you deflect when you get caught spreading lies you can’t back up with actual verifiable information.

      • Big Dog says:

        I have not spread any lies, I gave you my opinion just like the guy who researched the book did.

        What about when Bill Ayers said he wrote the book? Was he kidding?

        • Adam says:

          “I gave you my opinion…”

          Informed opinion is one thing. Your spreading something entirely different and you know it.

          “Was he kidding?”

          Are you kidding? I think we both know what Ayers was doing when he said that.

  15. Big Dog says:

    Funny how you point fingers when you did the same thing (and continue to do so).