http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/16/the-cult-like-attack-of-obama/

Freaking hilarious!

"Yes We Can" is powerful, simple, motivational. That's it. Power for the people, by the people and of the people.

These clowns suggest it's a cult like thing. Well, maybe it is --and count me in as a member for sure.

My gut says this is framing things up for some religious undertones later on, should he get the nod.

Good news overall --if you are an Obama supporter! If that's all they have right now, good! Obama is looking good.

Well tehre is also the fact, he has no experience.

Hes a known druggie, and by the way how did he support his drug habbit?

Obama has more experience than George W. Bush had before running for president - but no doubt, you have no problem voting for Bush, eh Nwokie?

Andrew

8 Years as Gov, plus running several business.

compared to a state legislature and cog for the daley machine.

Running several businesses into the ground ... just like he did to this country.

http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html

Nwokie, as before, you might wish to check your math there. Bush was not governor of Texas for eight years. Try six years, from swearing-in to swearing-in. Obama will have been Senator for four years from swearing-in to swearing-in...plus years in the Illinois State Legislature, plus time before that teaching constitutional law, prosecuting civil right cases. Clearly, Obama is more experienced than Bush was.

And as Andy points out, running businesses into the ground isn't exactly something most people are proud to put on their resume. Then again, Obama didn't get a gift of a figurehead/investment deal in a baseball team just because his daddy was president.

Andrew

As explained by Kevin Phillips in his book, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush, George W. Bush's businesses fail but he makes millions. Among Mr. Bush's business ventures:

•Arbusto, an oil exploration company, lost money, but it got considerable investments (nearly $5 million) because even losing oil investments were useful as tax shelters.
•Spectrum 7 Energy Corp. bought out Arbusto in 1984 and hired Mr. Bush to run the company's oil interests in Midland, Texas. The oil business collapsed as oil prices plummeted by 1986, and Spectrum 7 Energy was near failure.
•Harken Energy acquired Mr. Bush's Spectrum 7 Energy shares, and he got Harken shares, a directorship, and a consulting arrangement in return. Harken, under Bush, brought in Saudi real estate tycoon Sheikh Abdullah Bakhsh as a board member and a major investor. Over the next few years, Harken would turn out to have links to: Saudi money, CIA-connected Filipinos, the Harvard Endowment, the emir of Bahrain, and the shadowy Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
A 1991 internal SEC document suggested George W. Bush violated federal securities law at least 4 times in the late 1980s and early 1990s in selling Harken stock while serving as a director of Harken. This is essentially the same kind of activity that Martha Stewart is going to prison over. Except at the time of the investigation, Mr. Bush's father was president and the case was quietly dropped.

Hmm . . . I wonder how Bush supported HIS druggie habit? Cash from Dad?

While I support Hillary, I concede that Obama is nearly a saint in the world of politics. Suggesting otherwise indicates that one is brain dead.

Obama will have been Senator for four years from swearing-in to swearing-in...plus years in the Illinois State Legislature

To quote Ross Perot; "Just because you've run the corner drugstore, it doesn't make you qualified to run Wal-Mart!"

PLEASE don't take this as my support for Hillary. I'd rather have a colonoscopy with a red hot iron rod!

To quote John McCain (Newsweek March 13,2000)

"Ross Perot is nuttier than a fruitcake!"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/94827

No experience is a non-starter.

Passion counts for a lot. So does being clear of thought --rational!

At the very least, such a person of lower experience just might not be owned by special interests and such.

--and think about it. Do we want people with the experience of the last 8 years? Would those be characterized as successful?

I sure wouldn't go there!

IMHO, we need to change up the game a little. That's gonna take some charisma and passion as much as it is gonna take knowing how to game the system for this interest or that.

Here's an interesting parallel:

Take two instructors. One has a ton of experience, knows the subject cold, but has some character problems. Ego is outta check, maybe lower tolerance for people struggling, considers some questions stupid, maybe focused on only some people being successful because they are more "important" or "substantial".

Take the other one who maybe does not have those years of experience, but is bright, willing to help, and just really into helping everybody get better.

When a question comes up, there is a problem, or something that triggers some work and discussion, which one is gonna lead the class in a favorable way?

Our jaded "been there done that" instructor is gonna side line the discussion, cite the usual sources and push forward. Maybe give the stock answer and put the burden on the students.

The other instructor might take the discussion and go with it. Everybody gets involved and some real learning happens. Maybe the schedule gets a bit off, maybe one student puts out a solid answer, maybe it's just damn fun for a while and motivational.

When people see somebody working for them, actually trying to help out, make it better, they tend to buy into that --if the effort is real. People like that in others and it's catchy. Kind of a push-pull kind of thing instead of a push only, "I know better than you, so just deal" atmosphere.

The current administration has been all about, "we know better, just deal" and it's not been encouraging. It's not something easily trusted, and given mistakes, downright depressing where core national motivations are concerned.

That's gotta change. If people are inspired, they are gonna be willing to do some work to get things done in a way that makes good sense.

Often, we may not know what that best sense case is, until after we get into it and learn some stuff!

So, where does the experience count in all of that? Having experience within the mess we have now, or having experience motivating people and cultivating a "yes we can" culture?

I would take the "Yes we can" deal in a second, seasoned pro or not! Yes we can is for the people, by the people and of the people. That's American and it's a known solid way to go.

Obama has that experience and it's showing huge. Why else make the cult comparison?

The guy is not stupid, he is passionate and has the strength of character to deal with people, put hard stuff on the table and go and get it done.

Maybe it's shallow, but I'm all for "Yes we can", over "I know better" any day. Anybody with the character traits required to get to "Yes we can" is gonna be a pretty damn good leader, given how our system is structured.

One has a ton of experience, knows the subject cold, but has some character problems. Ego is outta check, maybe lower tolerance for people struggling, considers some questions stupid, maybe focused on only some people being successful because they are more "important" or "substantial".

I believe you just described Bobby Knight.

Drug habit??
DUHbya snorted coke too!

And you have evidence for that statement? Obama admits to a coke habit. There is no evidence President Bush used illegal drugs.

So it isn't ture???
At least Obama has the BALLS to admit to shit and DUHbya is missing the stones to admit fault to anything.
IMPRESSIVE!

Nwokie, if Bush didn't use cocaine why do you suppose he didn't simply deny it, instead of his non-denial denials? Or do you take everything a Republican says at face value?

Andrew

Nwokie's denial problems are difficult to grasp when there is plenty of evidence as to the Shrub's former and possible present substance abuse issues.

There is in fact so much information on this, it's way too vast to list even the root sources of it.

But first, watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO0QPswkICg

(I can't get the above to work as link for some beyond me reason, you'll have to cut and paste into the browser ... but
do it, it's clearly worth it ... a whole minute of stuttering)

OK. Now this is clearly someone under the influence of something. You decide.

It's very possible that the prez is still an abuser:

An editorial letter by Graydon Carter in Vanity Fair for January, 2008, quotes a new book about Bush:
"a new book by former British foreign secretary Lord Owen may supply a clue. In The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair, and the Intoxication of Power (ISBN 1842752197), Owen recalls the time in 2002 when the commander in chief collapsed while sitting on a sofa watching a football game. (Official cause: he’d choked on a pretzel.) The presidential head hit a table on the way to the floor, he suffered an abrasion on the left side of his face, and a blood sample was rushed to Johns Hopkins, in Baltimore. Owen says he was told by a British doctor who had visited Johns Hopkins that lab technicians there found that the blood contained significant amounts of alcohol."[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-seery/the-bush-cocaine-chronicl_b_37786.html

Nwokie, you're funny.

When presented with FACTS the ULTRA EXTREME RIGHT runs and hides. Funny how FACTS can make some shut up.

If true, he had a few drinks, thats not illegal.Obama confesses to being a druggie, thats illegal.

Bush smoked pot and was addicted to cocaine. He was arrested but it was expunged. If that's not illegal, what is?

Besides, he's been the architect of failed policy both internationally and domestically. This is more important anyway, and it's something that can no longer be denied by even the right wing.

And you have any proof of this? Soulds like a lot of rumers spread by a jealous demo party.

Oh, so it's not the drugs! He's just stupid then.

Thanks for clearing that up!

Nwokie-dokie.

Obama honestly and frankly admitted to drug experimentation in his book, Dreams from My Father. He was a young man, and like virtually every other young man, he tried things out. The only habit that he has ever had was three cigarettes a day.

He was candid about his youth, and now you are turning it into a big issue. He did not need a free pass to change his ways. Unlike say, a young John McCain and our current resident. Those are two fellows with major party animal pasts.

Much of that past has been buried and obfuscated, but the memories of friends and colleagues are still quite fresh. There are many many more damning skeletons in the closets of McCain (Keating Five, crashed Navy aircraft, etc.) and Hillary (Where do we start?), than Obama (controversial acquaintences).

Want to explore the issue of partying? Old habits die hard, so it was no surprise when Hillary and John led a vodka drinking contest in Estonia. Apparently, booze is bipartisan. They are part of a plurality of politicians who think traveling on our dime is for their entertainment first, and our policy second.

As for all the other lies and horseapples you have thrown around, Andy has already hammered you flat. I know you are the only one who believes that garbage, so I will leave you alone in your ignorance.

Add -- Missing, I wish I had come up with that great analogy about experience. Good stuff! LOL @ Chris -- except Bobby Knight had the grace to step aside when he had a new generation to fill his flying chair.

Thanks!

It came straight from the KSKD book of life experience. I've been both those instructors and "yes we can" beats the hell outta anything else.

LS...not sure "grace" and "Bobby Knight" belong in the same sentence but your point is well put.

Chris, you think that Bobby Knight is not blessed with grace? :0)

I stand by my last post.

Or as Bobby Knight my put it "(*^$% @!#$% *&$@&*&R%^$^%&@#%^%@$%@%^!!!!!!!!!"

I don't think hell will take BK either.