Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
The Truth VS. Barack Obama (full version)
savagepolitics.com — This is a must, must, must read. All of it.
fletch123- 49 diggs
- digg it
- jbenson2, on 05/18/2008, -7/+23Wow, finally a great source for the many lies from the O-man.
Especially Charge #8
VERDICT – SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR- jcm267, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2I didn't read the WND link, I put them as not too far above Prisonplanet. But I would like it if someone who has Obama's book could corroborate the claim made in charge #8.
- Barbrady, on 06/04/2008, -3/+16Great info!
- psiege, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6Brilliant, absolutely brilliant! I challenge all Obamabots to read that report, and it's sources, in it's entirety.
- moomza, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1just did - and on each point I thought to myself "is this the best you can do?"
The article was actually a good reminder of just how squeeky clean Obama is compared to other politicians.
you guys are screwed, ha!- btschul, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Yeah, ties to muslims and genocide in africa, constant lies, lack of experience. He is ***** squeaky clean. Well, go ahead and bury me I guess, the button is right there --^
- moomza, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1just did - and on each point I thought to myself "is this the best you can do?"
- goldy1064, on 06/05/2008, -4/+3Well, either way, he's the best option left on the table. You Bush-supporters seem unable to grasp the concept of hypocrisy. Let me explain... You overlook all the obviousness of exactly how bad Bush would run the country (based on those he surrounded himself with and his lifelong experience of failing in all his endeavors), you then have the audacity to come out and slam Obama for doing almost the same thing. To me, though, I can overlook the minutiae that the GOP-haters throw out so that the last best choice the become President isn't thwarted by someone I absolutely wouldn't trust. (Don't try responding with, "Well, you're overlooking, too!" because I have already stated the exact reasons I am doing that.)
Furthermore, in the world of politics, what this article demonstrates is character assassination. "Maybe if we make people think he's a bad man, they won't vote for the candidate that is obviously better for most American's." Nowhere does it come close to debunking him for the policies he wants to do or what he would be willing to do in office -- but of course the alternate, McCain, would keep us in Iraq, give us more tax cuts, and balance the budget (how exactly, no one is sure). This is the same hatefulness that is being thrown at Scott McClellan for the audacity to speak out (note that no one is denying his allegations) about the Bush administrations law-breaking (remember, they've admitted to water-boarding (internationally defined as torture), using propaganda to sell a war (via "military analysts", and most likely had a hand in outing an undercover CIA operative...but they support the troops).- psiege, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5The more amazing thing to me, is that you Obamabots continue to look back at Bush and say, "See, see, see" anytime someone points out a single flaw, of the many, about Obama. This laundry list of lies is very extensive, and I'm guessing by your quick response, you didn't bother to read it. You talk about policies, but this article debunks many of his policies, and does it well. You throw around the "best choice" statement, based on what? How do you know he's the best choice, because he speaks well? Are you kidding? I remember pinning you down during our pancake breakfast numerous times on Obama's policy stances that you did not agree with. You also at first said that you would seriously look at the Ayers connection, and now you are looking the other way. What about Rezko, who was just convicted!
This is not character assassination. It's all true. What's wrong with finding the truth about a candidate and where his beliefs truly lie? Just because a man says he's going to do something, doesn't mean that he's telling you the truth. How else to know this, other than his past actions, associations, votes, etc.? The reason this is getting so much attention, is that a troubling pattern is forming. It's not about "us" making people "think" he's a bad man, the evidence is doing that for us. Again, why even bring up Bush, he's not running, Obama, however is. If Obama's problems so closely correlate to those of Bush when he was running, and you so adamantly disagree with Bush, why the hell would you be voting for him?
I've never seen a group of people so blindly follow the mantra of "hope and change" as those that support Obama.- jcm267, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3"Again, why even bring up Bush, he's not running, Obama, however is"
- Funny that now that it's between Obama and a guy who was a huge pain in Bush's ass for 8 years they are all running against Bush and see no problem with it. When the Republicans ran against the Clinton Administration in the 2000 race against Clinton's Vice President the old "but but but CLINTON" mindless rebuttal became popular.
- jcm267, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3"Again, why even bring up Bush, he's not running, Obama, however is"
- jcm267, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3Not everyone who doesn't like Obama is a Bush lover. Just because a man had failures earlier in life doesn't mean that he's going to fail in everything in his life. There's a difference between finding a candidate with deep character flaws who ever so frequently lies about his actions and beliefs, and a candidate who had problems and failures who grew up later in life.
- psiege, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5The more amazing thing to me, is that you Obamabots continue to look back at Bush and say, "See, see, see" anytime someone points out a single flaw, of the many, about Obama. This laundry list of lies is very extensive, and I'm guessing by your quick response, you didn't bother to read it. You talk about policies, but this article debunks many of his policies, and does it well. You throw around the "best choice" statement, based on what? How do you know he's the best choice, because he speaks well? Are you kidding? I remember pinning you down during our pancake breakfast numerous times on Obama's policy stances that you did not agree with. You also at first said that you would seriously look at the Ayers connection, and now you are looking the other way. What about Rezko, who was just convicted!
- punx, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7This is a great article, and it really comes as no surprise to me. The problem is that these Obama disciples couldn't care less about these truths. They blindly follow their new leader like I have never seen before, at least not in this country. I can only hope all Republicans get out and vote in November. The thought of this liar as president may be the most frightening prospect in the history of this country. And please don't get me started on his wife as First Lady.
- banderwocky, on 06/05/2008, -4/+3"They blindly follow their new leader like I have never seen before, at least not in this country." Like how the media and general public followed the Bush/Cheney war wagon and WMD lie in Iraq?
More truthiness from Chicken Hawk paper pushers. Keep your head in the sand, it's best for everyone.- jcm267, on 06/05/2008, -2/+7WMD lie? They were using the same intelligence that Clinton used. There were reports that the mobile weapons labs (which the intelligence community agreed did exist) were simply driven across the border to Syria, you know. As for the older WMDs that Saddam claimed that he destroyed? They were found IN Iraq.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Why do you keep spreading the lie that the Bush Administration lied about WMDs to go to invade Iraq?- skrowl, on 06/05/2008, -2/+8They keep spreading the lie because it's convenient for them to do so and because they know that only 1 person out of a thousand will actually bother to fact check.
You must be new to digg. Lies get front paged here all the time, as long as they're pro-liberal and/or anti-conservative.
It's not unbiased, it's digg! - card51short, on 06/05/2008, -4/+4"You must be new to digg. Lies get front paged here all the time, as long as they're pro-liberal and/or anti-conservative."
Conspiracy nut.
No, they totally told the truth on the WMDs ;) - banderwocky, on 06/05/2008, -4/+2You mean the gas that was sold to Saddam by Rumsfeld?
I love you Fox morons who keep believing in the lie even when your regime admits they were wrong and no WMDs where there, that the "intelligence" was wrong. Just talking points from the mouth of Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld war machine. Keep on "blindly following your old leader" like all good Chicken Hawks do. - jcm267, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6"You mean the gas that was sold to Saddam by Rumsfeld?"
- What's your point? The issue is not how he acquired those WMDs, but that after he used these WMDs on his own people and then invaded a neighboring country he was told to destroy his existing stockpile or face the consequences. He failed to destroy his stockpile (proven) and the intelligence suggested that he was continuing to develop WMDs including but not limited to anthrax in his mobile weapons labs. Unproven accounts of the matter are that his mobile weapons labs were moved to Syria in the days before the invasion. Do you remember the news reports of all the cars and trucks fleeing to the border in the days before the war? I do.
"I love you Fox morons who keep believing in the lie even when your regime admits they were wrong and no WMDs where there, that the "intelligence" was wrong."
- When you can't form a cogent argument, just call your opponent a "fox news moron"!
"Just talking points from the mouth of Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld war machine. Keep on "blindly following your old leader" like all good Chicken Hawks do."
- And here you go, contradicting yourself! You just said that "my regime" admitted that they were wrong and that there were "no WMDs". Now you decided to go ahead and say that I'm taking talking points from them! Get your rhetoric together, you're a mess. - amightywind, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5Banderwocky doesn't argue with any point in mind. He is a narcissistic pacifist who takes any opportunity to shriek, "Bush Lied!!" The "Bush War Machine" seems to have whipped the terrorists into shape.
- card51short, on 06/05/2008, -4/+2amightywind doesn't argue with any point in mind. He is a narcissistic warmonger who takes any opportunity to shriek, "Bush is God!!" The "Bush Peace Machine of Love" seems to have won over the hearts of the Iraqis.
- skrowl, on 06/05/2008, -2/+8They keep spreading the lie because it's convenient for them to do so and because they know that only 1 person out of a thousand will actually bother to fact check.
- jcm267, on 06/05/2008, -2/+7WMD lie? They were using the same intelligence that Clinton used. There were reports that the mobile weapons labs (which the intelligence community agreed did exist) were simply driven across the border to Syria, you know. As for the older WMDs that Saddam claimed that he destroyed? They were found IN Iraq.
- banderwocky, on 06/05/2008, -4/+3"They blindly follow their new leader like I have never seen before, at least not in this country." Like how the media and general public followed the Bush/Cheney war wagon and WMD lie in Iraq?
- Neo829, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1This was a really interesting read. I have no doubt that people might debate the usefulness of the sources cited in some cases, but even if someone were to discount half of the issues here, there are still a mountain of questions that need answering.
- btschul, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1God this election is gonna suck.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by