The Khalidi Interview

[HowardRoark]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

Of course you don't ...... You just condone socializing with people that do it.

I suppose Obama doesn't condone planting bombs in government buildings and killing cops either.

Thank you for the EXCELLENT analogy.

I compare the two for the sole reason of pointing out.......we were in the room at the same time. Stop twisting the words.

This is nothing but a bunch of bellyfeeling!!! Of course it is ungood what Ayers did/does. He wants to fundamentally change our country. When he was younger, he tried to do it with violence. Now, he is using other methods. Obama is in on the deal with him. Period.

The fact that we even have to have this discussion is absurd. Ayers and Obama were MORE than just guys "down the street" from each other. This comparison to your cocktail party is nonsense.

[packinpatland]

Look, I just re-read what I wrote and need to add to it.

I get why you don't like the comparison. In fact, I agree with that part of it. I don't think your words were twisted, but I understand you didn't like it.

But, really. You aren't running for public office. You don't have a pattern of behavior in this regard. But, the chosen one does. And, he IS running for office.

The comparisons are fair. The associations should lead to questions. But, they haven't.

Oh, by the way, if you were offended enough by being in the same room with this guy, maybe you should have left? I might have.

I understand your point, and the others.......I just don't agree.
My original point was that by being at the event, not leaving, shouldn't have led anyone to the conclusion that you have the same mindset as any one person in the room.

[LL2]

[quote="packinpatland"]

Look, I just re-read what I wrote and need to add to it.

I get why you don't like the comparison. In fact, I agree with that part of it. I don't think your words were twisted, but I understand you didn't like it.

But, really. You aren't running for public office. You don't have a pattern of behavior in this regard. But, the chosen one does. And, he IS running for office.

The comparisons are fair. The associations should lead to questions. But, they haven't.

Oh, by the way, if you were offended enough by being in the same room with this guy, maybe you should have left? I might have.

I understand your point, and the others.......I just don't agree.
My original point was that by being at the event, not leaving, shouldn't have led anyone to the conclusion that you have the same mindset as any one person in the room.[/quoted]

PIP, it's good that you see Retail's point. Your point and example is classic liberal down playing the attendance of an event or association with an individual. In your example you didn't "know" the guy and were merely in the same toom with him. Personally I would've kicked him in the nuts. Obama was not just in the same room with Ayers, Wright, Khadlil, Rezco, etc. There is a big difference between your point and Obama knowing these shady folks. I can't believe you can't even notice the trend in Obama's associations with these folks.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Obama's RECORD of votes ....

PRESENT!!!!!!

I would say it means that the guy didn't want to make a commitment in the form of a vote that might bite him in the ass later--while at the same time, not wanting to be accused of being AWOL on the vote. Do you have a better description, Tyrone?

No, P.I.P., as you correctly imply, being on the side of goodness, decency, and Biblical truth is NOT a requirement for citizenship--although we'd have a much more pleasnt country if it was. That set of values and beliefs, however, is the clear majority view in America. Thus, having a president who would choose judicial appointees that would affirmatively try to tear down those beliefs and values is distinctly anti-democratic (little d)--although it is very pro-Democratic (big D). It's just another example of leftist elitists disrespecting the solid majority of good normal Americans and trying to inflict a hateful and immoral agenda on us.

Tyrone, you and this guy, Horton, can try and spin things any way you want to, but you can't get around the fact that this scumbag, Khalidi, supported terrorists, and Obama found his views very praiseworthy, and stated that. As yiou say, we have the ultra-liberal LA Times's article in April exposing that, even though it would be nice to have the tape as visual evidence.

BTW, I don't think anybody suggested that Khallidi babysat Obama's kids; That would be the terrorist, Ayres, that did that.

The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

A "present" vote is taking a stand. In fact the "present" vote says more than if the Senator had just voted "no."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

My husband and I were at a recent work related social fuction. At the party there was a man who is a registered sex offender , he's married to one of the admins. Should we have left the party? I wouldn't want anyone to think we condone molestation of small children.

If you knew he was a sex offender and the folks around you were yukking it up about molestation, I would hope you'd leave.

We knew he was an offender and no one was 'yukking' it up.
Which is pretty much what I would imagine happened with Obama........I doubt whether anyone yukked it up about the Weatherman group.

Obama did "yuk" it up with Rashid Khalidi as he attended a party that was in honor of Rashid Khalidi, and had kinds words to say about him...what Obama said we will not know because the LA Times would rather conceal the story.

Ridiculous. They wrote the story...so then they could be accused of covering it up?

[Bossman641]

Obama's RECORD of votes ....

PRESENT!!!!!!

I would say it means that the guy didn't want to make a commitment in the form of a vote that might bite him in the ass later--while at the same time, not wanting to be accused of being AWOL on the vote. Do you have a better description, Tyrone?

No, P.I.P., as you correctly imply, being on the side of goodness, decency, and Biblical truth is NOT a requirement for citizenship--although we'd have a much more pleasnt country if it was. That set of values and beliefs, however, is the clear majority view in America. Thus, having a president who would choose judicial appointees that would affirmatively try to tear down those beliefs and values is distinctly anti-democratic (little d)--although it is very pro-Democratic (big D). It's just another example of leftist elitists disrespecting the solid majority of good normal Americans and trying to inflict a hateful and immoral agenda on us.

Tyrone, you and this guy, Horton, can try and spin things any way you want to, but you can't get around the fact that this scumbag, Khalidi, supported terrorists, and Obama found his views very praiseworthy, and stated that. As yiou say, we have the ultra-liberal LA Times's article in April exposing that, even though it would be nice to have the tape as visual evidence.

BTW, I don't think anybody suggested that Khallidi babysat Obama's kids; That would be the terrorist, Ayres, that did that.

The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

A "present" vote is taking a stand. In fact the "present" vote says more than if the Senator had just voted "no."

Or when you just don't want to take a stand on something because you know you will get backlash on it later on.

[texaspackerbacker]

Obama's RECORD of votes ....

PRESENT!!!!!!

I would say it means that the guy didn't want to make a commitment in the form of a vote that might bite him in the ass later--while at the same time, not wanting to be accused of being AWOL on the vote. Do you have a better description, Tyrone?

No, P.I.P., as you correctly imply, being on the side of goodness, decency, and Biblical truth is NOT a requirement for citizenship--although we'd have a much more pleasnt country if it was. That set of values and beliefs, however, is the clear majority view in America. Thus, having a president who would choose judicial appointees that would affirmatively try to tear down those beliefs and values is distinctly anti-democratic (little d)--although it is very pro-Democratic (big D). It's just another example of leftist elitists disrespecting the solid majority of good normal Americans and trying to inflict a hateful and immoral agenda on us.

Tyrone, you and this guy, Horton, can try and spin things any way you want to, but you can't get around the fact that this scumbag, Khalidi, supported terrorists, and Obama found his views very praiseworthy, and stated that. As yiou say, we have the ultra-liberal LA Times's article in April exposing that, even though it would be nice to have the tape as visual evidence.

BTW, I don't think anybody suggested that Khallidi babysat Obama's kids; That would be the terrorist, Ayres, that did that.

The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

A "present" vote is taking a stand. In fact the "present" vote says more than if the Senator had just voted "no."

So you're saying that if you have 48 yes votes, 45 no votes, and 5 present votes, the measure does not pass? I don't think so.

A present vote reflects a politician's inclination to vote one way, but his knowledge that such a vote would cost him politically--as it should if he knowingly votes contrary to the views of his constituents. A present vote also reflects a politician's desire to not be recorded as absent--even though he either can't make up his mind or more likely, doesn't want to pay the political price for an unpopular vote.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wrong. A present vote is understood to be a No vote. simple as that.

[LL2]

Wrong. A present vote is understood to be a No vote. simple as that.

Whatcha talkin about Willis? You've doing doing the crack again!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wrong. A present vote is understood to be a No vote. simple as that.

Whatcha talkin about Willis? You've doing doing the crack again!

I guess i have to repeat this, again.

The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

A "present" vote is taking a stand. In fact the "present" vote says more than if the Senator had just voted "no."

So, let us put this into practice at a different level. Instead of Obama and Mac bickering about no votes for military funding...they both woulda voted No..because while they both want funding to be there..they both didn't like certain parts...troop withdrawl, education benefits, etc.

[LL2]

Wrong. A present vote is understood to be a No vote. simple as that.

Whatcha talkin about Willis? You've doing doing the crack again!

I guess i have to repeat this, again.

The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

A "present" vote is taking a stand. In fact the "present" vote says more than if the Senator had just voted "no."

So, let us put this into practice at a different level. Instead of Obama and Mac bickering about no votes for military funding...they both woulda voted No..because while they both want funding to be there..they both didn't like certain parts...troop withdrawl, education benefits, etc.

You know it's a matter of opinion that a "present" vote is a vote that is taking a stand. A "present" vote to most is taking a safe path.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wrong. A present vote is understood to be a No vote. simple as that.

Whatcha talkin about Willis? You've doing doing the crack again!

I guess i have to repeat this, again.

The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

A "present" vote is taking a stand. In fact the "present" vote says more than if the Senator had just voted "no."

So, let us put this into practice at a different level. Instead of Obama and Mac bickering about no votes for military funding...they both woulda voted No..because while they both want funding to be there..they both didn't like certain parts...troop withdrawl, education benefits, etc.

You know it's a matter of opinion that a "present" vote is a vote that is taking a stand. A "present" vote to most is taking a safe path.

Wrong. Everyone in the area of gov't understands what it means. If someone wanted to take a safe path..they wouldn't be there for the vote.

Try thinking for yourself.