YouTube is owned by Google, kthnx.

And who owns google?



Watching obviously biased videos will really change people's minds. Right. :rolleyes:

Just watch them, because it shows you where to find the sources, heck even I've been posting up the Senate Bills these Videos are talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg&NR=1)

"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... the GSE's need to be reformed without delay." -- Senator John McCain (R-AZ) Senate Floor on May 25, 2006.

And who owns google?
Google owns Google. Time Warner does not. If you read that TW does own Google, I'd have to wonder about the veracity of your sources. :rolleyes:

Just watch them, because it shows you where to find the sources, heck even I've been posting up the Senate Bills these Videos are talking about.
And these 'sources' aren't biased or haven't had any conservative 'spin' put on them. Sure.

Watch the videos and it tells you who caused this mess. I have a little education in the field of Finance and Accounting. I actually don't need to watch a video to tell me what caused this problem. :xp: I read information and then come to my own conclusion based on facts not bias speculation and exaggerations.

I'm not comfortable continuing this discussion in this thread as there is already a thread to discuss the bailout.

Google owns Google. Time Warner does not. If you read that TW does own Google, I'd have to wonder about the veracity of your sources. :rolleyes:


That part was my bad, I just remember the given reason that the web vids were taken down. Long story, but the vids never said youtube was owned by Time Warner. Just pointed out a link to why the vid kept being taken down.

More of a blah mistake on my part, thanks for pointing that out, where I'm typing faster than thinking, happens once in a while when in several debates at once.


And these 'sources' aren't biased or haven't had any conservative 'spin' put on them. Sure.

Not saying they don't but by the same token you can listen to the actual people saying things and most of the media gives a liberal 'spin' remember the mainstream press is actually trying to cover up Obama's connection to ACORN.

Not saying they don't but by the same token you can listen to the actual people saying things and most of the media gives a liberal 'spin' remember the mainstream press is actually trying to cover up Obama's connection to ACORN.

Well, I don't read a lot of mainstream press(I don't like TV news much), and they're not talking about it either.

Well, I don't read a lot of mainstream press(I don't like TV news much), and they're not talking about it either.

Thing is the left-wing sources don't want people to know about this, they are in the tank for Obama and are actively trying to get him elected.

Quite frankly, if the truth came out, his campaign would be finished.


http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/obama-corruption-money-laundering-acorn-fec-rules-no-quarter-usa-money-laundering-scandal-acorn-voter-fraud/)

That part was my bad, I just remember the given reason that the web vids were taken down. Long story, but the vids never said youtube was owned by Time Warner. Just pointed out a link to why the vid kept being taken down.

More of a blah mistake on my part, thanks for pointing that out, where I'm typing faster than thinking, happens once in a while when in several debates at once.
Glad you realize that you need to slow down and make sure what you read is factual rather than some smear. :p

Not saying they don't but by the same token you can listen to the actual people saying things and most of the media gives a liberal 'spin' remember the mainstream press is actually trying to cover up Obama's connection to ACORN.
Or maybe they know better enough not to pay attention to it because it's not that big an issue?

Thing is the left-wing sources don't want people to know about this, they are in the tank for Obama and are actively trying to get him elected.
And the right-wing sources you paste all over this forum aren't in the tank for McCain and actively trying to smear Obama so that McCain gets elected? Please.

Quite frankly, if the truth came out, his campaign would be finished.


http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/obama-corruption-money-laundering-acorn-fec-rules-no-quarter-usa-money-laundering-scandal-acorn-voter-fraud/)
Do you ever post sources that aren't completely and utterly biased?

Glad you realize that you need to slow down and make sure what you read is factual rather than some smear. :p


No that error was mine not the source.


Or maybe they know better enough not to pay attention to it because it's not that big an issue?


Since it took as long as it did to even get the superficial stuff on his relationship to Bill Ayers, I highly doubt it isn't a big issue.


And the right-wing sources you paste all over this forum aren't in the tank for McCain and actively trying to smear Obama so that McCain gets elected? Please.


They source their sources though, the videos will show searches you can do on google yourself.


Do you ever post sources that aren't completely and utterly biased?

Since I posted the actual full text of bills that Obama has voted on, so I have posted unbiased sources. There is next to no source out there that isn't biased anymore. Most sources are in the tank for Obama though.

No that error was mine not the source.
Yes, and I was suggesting that you need to slow down and read stuff carefully before spouting your mouth off.

Since it took as long as it did to even get the superficial stuff on his relationship to Bill Ayers, I highly doubt it isn't a big issue.
Makes sense that a conservative news source would get to it first, in any case. And they're addressing it now because of the smear tactics of the Republican campaign.

They source their sources though, the videos will show searches you can do on google yourself.
Yes, I see the sources. And I can see for myself the ridiculous spin that the videos put on them.

Since I posted the actual full text of bills that Obama has voted on, so I have posted unbiased sources.
Oh good, so you admit all the other sources you've posted are biased as hell.

There is next to no source out there that isn't biased anymore. Most sources are in the tank for Obama though.
News flash: Just because a source publishes a story that debunks a Republican claim does not mean they are 'in the tank for Obama'. You'll need more proof than that.

Yes, and I was suggesting that you need to slow down and read stuff carefully before spouting your mouth off.


I read things through, I'll take your suggestion to heart, and would suggest you read and listen to the sources I've provided before making judgements though.


Makes sense that a conservative news source would get to it first, in any case. And they're addressing it now because of the smear tactics of the Republican campaign.


And it took over a year for even the basic information to come out? Remember Fox News was the one that broke the Reverand Wright situation, you don't think it's important that the potential President has a pastor for 20 years that hates this country, and is a racist?

If it were a Republican with a pastor that hated blacks, it'd be all over the media and you'd be calling for his head.


Yes, I see the sources. And I can see for myself the ridiculous spin that the videos put on them.


Well people were saying Sean Hannity had gone off the deep end too, but now more and more stuff has come out that has proved Sean was right all along. My parents didn't believe this stuff at first until they did their own research and discovered that Sean was telling the truth.


Oh good, so you admit all the other sources you've posted are biased as hell.


Hey, I admit my sources have conservative leanings, but that doesn't mean that they aren't telling the truth.

They are actually less biased than CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC though. Right now Rush Limbaugh (whom I often think is way out there) in my opinion is a more reputable source than they are.


News flash: Just because a source publishes a story that debunks a Republican claim does not mean they are 'in the tank for Obama'. You'll need more proof than that.

How about the New York Times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html)
Btw, this article was on the front page of the NY Times, and was later proven to be completely bogus and having no remotely credible source.

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjZhMzkyYzBiYTZhMDQ3MmMzODk3OTRiZGJiMjk2YmU=)

http://www.mrc.org/worst/2008/20080812.asp)

The National Enquirer has better sources than what the New York Times article did, yet the New York Times refused to touch the Edward's affair.

Right now Rush Limbaugh (whom I often think is way out there) in my opinion is a more reputable source than they are.:lol: Known association with illegal prescription drug abuser. :xp:

Now if I want to know about the side effects of Oxycodone or Hydrocodone I’ll listen to Limbaugh. :xp:

:lol: Known association with illegal prescription drug abuser. :xp:

Now if I want to know about the side effects of Oxycodone or Hydrocodone I’ll listen to Limbaugh. :xp:

Uh huh, so my listening to Rush Limbaugh occasionally on the radio normally just for entertainment, is somehow worse than being associated with a terrorist on a personal level or training employees of a radical left wing organization?

Uh huh, so my listening to Rush Limbaugh occasionally on the radio normally just for entertainment, is somehow worse than being associated with a terrorist on a personal level or training employees of a radical left wing organization?Guilty by association. Isn't that what you're suggesting of Obama? :)

And it took over a year for even the basic information to come out?
Because it didn't seem all that important at the time? Ayers is currently a respected professor at a university and his contact with Obama was incidental at best. Hardly a cause for alarm.

Remember Fox News was the one that broke the Reverand Wright situation,
Fox News has done a lot of things that are ridiculously conservative.

you don't think it's important that the potential President has a pastor for 20 years that hates this country, and is a racist?
Not if said potential President is not a racist himself. Religious affiliations mean little to me.

If it were a Republican with a pastor that hated blacks, it'd be all over the media and you'd be calling for his head.
I wouldn't; as I've said, religious affiliations don't concern me. And as I said before, if the nominee himself is not a racist, then I fail to see the problem.

Well people were saying Sean Hannity had gone off the deep end too, but now more and more stuff has come out that has proved Sean was right all along. My parents didn't believe this stuff at first until they did their own research and discovered that Sean was telling the truth.
I don't follow Sean Hannity, you'll have to indulge me as to what he's doing because your statements make no sense to me without context. And that still doesn't explain why the videos need to be so blatantly biased.

Hey, I admit my sources have conservative leanings, but that doesn't mean that they aren't telling the truth.
It means they're distorting the truth to fit their conservative leanings.

They are actually less biased than CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC though.
I'd like some objective, unbiased, un-spun proof of this, please.

How about the New York Times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html)
Btw, this article was on the front page of the NY Times, and was later proven to be completely bogus and having no remotely credible source.
What, major publications aren't allowed to screw up now and again? How about I list the ways Fox News has screwed up? I'll guarantee you it's a lot more than the Times has.

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjZhMzkyYzBiYTZhMDQ3MmMzODk3OTRiZGJiMjk2YmU=)

http://www.mrc.org/worst/2008/20080812.asp)

The National Enquirer has better sources than what the New York Times article did, yet the New York Times refused to touch the Edward's affair.
The Enquirer also pays their sources, which isn't really a very sound journalistic tactic.

And again with the biased sources. Do you ever read anything that doesn't put a ridiculous conservative spin on things?

I'm reasonably certain guilt by association doesn't apply to abuse of prescription drugs. On the other hand, I'm reasonably certain it does apply to High Treason, which is what he's accusing Obama of.

I'm reasonably certain guilt by association doesn't apply to abuse of prescription drugs. On the other hand, I'm reasonably certain it does apply to High Treason, which is what he's accusing Obama of.

That's a little overboard, but the idea someone knowingly associating with terrorists (cause there is more than just Bill Ayers), is a big difference from listening to someone occasionally on the radio. Heck I've never even met Rush Limbaugh, whereas Obama has had dinner over at Ayers' house.

Obama has had dinner over at Ayers' house.
I'm sure the pot roast was plans to a nuclear bomb.


Judgment is judgment. While I don’t believe being friendly or listening to someone automatically makes someone guilty by association, stating that someone is guilty because they broke bread with them, or listen to their views, worked for a company or were friends with them is absurd. Just because Obama ate with Bill Avers, listen to Jeremiah Wright or worked at ACORN does not make him guilty of anything. After all I’m reading a lot of post here, but that does not mean I agree with any of them. It is what Obama believes that is important, not what Wright, Avers or Acorn believes.

Just because you listen to another point of view does not mean you agree with it, it just means you are polite. Jesus broke bread with sinners, so why can’t we all?

I'm having flashbacks to Steve Cohen comparing Obama to Jesus.

Jesus broke bread with sinners, so why can’t we all?
IIRC, Jesus broke bread with repentant sinners, mimartin. Bill Ayers doesn't seem very repentant to me.

IIRC, Jesus broke bread with repentant sinners, mimartin. Bill Ayers doesn't seem very repentant to me.

I thought Jesus was the one that got them to repent. Sounds kind of silly for Jesus only to deal with the repentant.

How can you change someone’s mind if you do not have an open dialogue?

I thought Jesus was the one that got them to repent. Sounds kind of silly for Jesus only to deal with the repentant.

How can you change someone’s mind if you do not have an open dialogue?

Jesus got them to repent, he didn't help them teach young people hate, so there is no comparison to Jesus.

Jesus got them to repent, he didn't help them teach young people hate, so there is no comparison to Jesus.
:confused:
What are you talking about? I not comparing anyone to Jesus.


I am just saying it is not a sin to asssociate with sinners.

By the way, Obama is not teaching young people to hate either.

:confused:
What are you talking about? I not comparing anyone to Jesus.


I am just saying it is not a sin to asssociate with sinners.

By the way, Obama is not teaching young people to hate either.

He was the one diverting funds to them from a Foundation that was supposedly for Education.

Here's (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/223436.php) another take on the whole ACORN thing. It's from a blog to take it with a grain of salt, however the article is well-sourced which should lend it more credibility than many of the other links provided thus far in this thread (which contain accusation and supposition and nothing more).

I hope you find it useful.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1124865&srvc=home&position=emailed)

You mean this ACORN group that's under investigation by the FBI?

Headline: "Voter fraud charge dogging lefty group"

Yup, no bias here at all. :rolleyes:

You mean this ACORN group that's under investigation by the FBI?

And lets not forget this group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five) the FBI Investigated too. Some people just try to manipulate the system...you know?

And lets not forget this group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five) the FBI Investigated too. Some people just try to manipulate the system...you know?

Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment". Thats all I need to know. McCain exercised poor judgement, and Obama will be guilty of stealing an election.

and Obama will be guilty of stealing an election.

Seeing as there's been no decision yet, it's a bit premature to be assuming that, don't you think?

Seeing as there's been no decision yet, it's a bit premature to be assuming that, don't you think? Yeah, you may be right. See my signature though.

Seeing as there's been no decision yet, it's a bit premature to be assuming that, don't you think?
No, it's not. ACORN staff are under investigation for voter registration fraud in WI and other states. It's not the association that Obama has that disturbs me--there's nothing tying him directly to any kind of registration fraud and he's come out against voter fraud (although it probably would be political suicide if he didn't come out against fraud).

What disturbs me is what happens if the race is close in states where ACORN fraud has been particularly bad, and those states have an impact on who wins. If the vote is very close in WI and our electoral vote make a diffeence in who wins, I'm concerned we could end up like FL in the 2000 election. I have no doubt that the election findings will be challenged legally in WI and other states where ACORN and similar organizations are active if the vote is close. If neither man wins enough votes to win decisively, we won't have just one contested state, we'll have upwards of 10 or more contested states. Obama's association with ACORN will be dwarfed by what could happen if the race is doesn't have a clear winner. It will be a losing proposition for whoever won--McCain would be accused of pulling another Bush 2000 vote, and Obama would be under a cloud of ACORN suspicion.

Unfortunately, I think we've only just begun to uncover the extent of the fraud.

Wallstreet Journal: WSJ: Oct. 14th: Obama & ACORN (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394051071230749.html?mod=special_page_campaig) n2008_mostpop)

Fresh off the press:
Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who got his start as a Chicago "community organizer" at Acorn's side. In 1992 he led voter registration efforts as the director of Project Vote, which included Acorn. This past November, he lauded Acorn's leaders for being "smack dab in the middle" of that effort. Mr. Obama also served as a lawyer for Acorn in 1995, in a case against Illinois to increase access to the polls.

During his tenure on the board of Chicago's Woods Fund, that body funneled more than $200,000 to Acorn. More recently, the Obama campaign paid $832,000 to an Acorn affiliate. The campaign initially told the Federal Election Commission this money was for "staging, sound, lighting." It later admitted the cash was to get out the vote.

The Obama campaign is now distancing itself from Acorn, claiming Mr. Obama never organized with it and has nothing to do with illegal voter registration. Yet it's disingenuous to channel cash into an operation with a history of fraud and then claim you're shocked to discover reports of fraud. As with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, Mr. Obama was happy to associate with Acorn when it suited his purposes. But now that he's on the brink of the Presidency, he wants to disavow his ties.

Wallstreet Journal: WSJ: Oct. 14th: Obama & ACORN (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394051071230749.html?mod=special_page_campaig) n2008_mostpop)Don't listen to The Wall Street Journal. It's way out there in right field, if you know what I mean. Not to mention that it's owned Rupert Murdoch, the media tycoon of the world.

What is the problem with Wall Street Journal? I have always followed their news.

What is the problem with Wall Street Journal? I have always followed their news.Other than the Editorial section being awfully right wing sometimes, they've also been shown to be inaccurate on several occasions.

http://www.fair.org/extra/9509/wsj.html)
http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/96/4/wsj.asp)

It's evil right-wing propaganda, as opposed to benevolent left-wing propaganda. :roleyess:

It's evil right-wing propaganda, as opposed to benevolent left-wing propaganda. :roleyess:Replace "right wing propaganda" with "'**** you, got mine' propaganda" and that's the WSJ.

Or "I'm alright, Jack. Keep your hands off my stack." propaganda. :p

Don't listen to The Wall Street Journal. It's way out there in right field, if you know what I mean. Not to mention that it's owned Rupert Murdoch, the media tycoon of the world.

And I'm sure the outlets that get their news at the approval of George Soros and Ted Turner is any better?


Fact is, I'd believe Rupert Murdoch over Soros any day of the week, especially since Soros funds moveon.org.



Anyways Obama, has purged one of his websites to try to cover up evidence. Sean Hannity was bringing it up complete with transcripts and pointing out how Obama has been lieing about his connections with ACORN.


No, it's not. ACORN staff are under investigation for voter registration fraud in WI and other states. It's not the association that Obama has that disturbs me--there's nothing tying him directly to any kind of registration fraud and he's come out against voter fraud (although it probably would be political suicide if he didn't come out against fraud).


Try Ohio with same day voter registration, a Federal Appeals court just ruled in favor of the Republicans in a lawsuit against the Democrat Secretary of State in Ohio. She had been trying to sit on the situation, until the ACORN ballots were opened and then they could no longer be traced or investigated for fraud.

So voter fraud is going on, it isn't just registration fraud.

Even Obama says associations matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewI1QD0QUoA)

It sucks being on the other side of a rigged election doesn't it?

I personally don't care if he did or did not try and rig the votes. Cheating can either be seen as cheating, or intelligent use of opportunity. In this case he may have been caught, showing that he at least doesn't know how to cheat well.

Is that good or bad? He (might have) got caught. The election process is about who can cheat (aka, use opportunity) to their best ability to achieve the ultimate seat of power.

He's a politician. I expect them to do things like this. Hell, its a requirement to get to the office.

Its always been about who can cheat better in politics. The strongest of the manipulators are the ones that make it into office and use their strength to manipulate the house, senate, congress, party, and the rest of the American people to do as they would like.

Not how they demand, mind you. But what they would like. We're not a dictatorship after all. The presidents power is still limited, and I don't see it being expanded much for a long while.

Does that make Obama evil? Does that make McCain evil? No, it makes them politicians and the fact they are now both on the final stretch shows they are both pretty good at manipulating the game to their benefit.

Obama slipped up, and now he's paying the price.

LOL.

http://lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=194&pictureid=2165)
Maverick. (http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/707)

Media coverage is kinda one-sided on this.

Example:
A further examination of these two experts however shows that Rood is downright deceitful in presenting this argument. Lorraine Minnite actually donated $250 to the Obama campaign in March of this year while David Becker is anything but the Republican that he is portrayed as in the article. In fact Mr. Becker is a former director at People for the American Way, a liberal activist group that monitors "right wing organizations" and is currently launching a campaign aimed at Fighting Back Against Right-Wing Smears of ACORN.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2008/10/17/abc-news-used-obama-contributor-expert-defense-acorn)

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2008/10/17/flash-tom-brokaw-involved-soros-funded-charity-funds-acorn)

Obama is heavily connected to ACORN, plus there is the added money trail.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/10/15/cnn-s-jeffrey-toobin-obama-doesnt-have-affiliation-acorn)

Well thank god we have Newsbusters and their recursive citations to expose and combat the liberal media bias.

Well thank god we have Newsbusters and their recursive citations to expose and combat the liberal media bias.

Well in all honesty if Fox News had used a McCain Campaign person as an expert for the opposing side, the Mainstream media would be all over it in a heartbeat.

Well in all honesty if Fox News had used a McCain Campaign person as an expert for the opposing side, the Mainstream media would be all over it in a heartbeat.
lulz (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2540265&postcount=106)

lolz (http://www.mdc.edu/Home/Press/rally.htm)
The rally will feature Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as the headline speaker...

The rally in Miami is being sponsored by the New American Opportunity campaign (NAOC) in partnership with ACORN...

Clear evidence that John McCain is in the tank with Obama.

lolz (http://www.mdc.edu/Home/Press/rally.htm)

Yeah, there's some other dishy good stuff in my maverick post.

lolz (http://www.mdc.edu/Home/Press/rally.htm)

So you're saying one speech at a place to try to court the minority vote is equivalent to working for them as an organizer, being their lawyer, funnelling money to them, and paying them over $800,000 this campaign for their "Get out the Vote" drive?

In 2001, when Obama was a part-time director of The Woods Fund of Chicago, it gave $75,000 to ACORN, the voter registration group now under investigation for voter fraud in 12 states.

Obama Education Group Funded Controversial Organizations in the '90s, Tax Returns Show (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/obamas-education-groups-funded-controversial-organiations-s-tax-returns/)