CreateDebate


Debate Info

26
32
Too stupid to tie his shoes? Dumb like a fox?
Debate Score:58
Arguments:27
Total Votes:105
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Too stupid to tie his shoes? (9)
 
 Dumb like a fox? (18)

Debate Creator

Inkwell(328) pic



So which is the real Obama?

He is trying to have it both ways!

Too stupid to tie his shoes?

Side Score: 26
VS.

Dumb like a fox?

Side Score: 32
2 points

Obama would have us believe some pretty wild concepts.

He can be a member of a prominent church whose leader is a hate mongering racist who screams anti American epithets from the pulpit for twenty years and never know this aspect of the church.

He can be hired as CEO of a $50M foundation by a guy, serve on multiple boards with him, have a mutually beneficial career wise relationship with him, let the guy host the kickoff meeting of his first political campaign in his home, raise money for that campaign and travel for years in the same professional and political circles with the guy and yet never know that he was the founder of the Weather Underground, once on the FBI ten most wanted, once bombed US government buildings and remains to this day unrepentant for his actions of those days and expect us to swallow his characterization of the guy as "someone who lived in his neighborhood".

He can be personally chosen by ACORN as their lawyer (according to Toni Foulkes, Chicago ACORN leader and national Board member) and then apparently believe and expect us to believe that he just happened to be attorney chosen by his law firm for that case.

He can provide leadership training in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals on a yearly basis for ACORN. Use ACORN to provide on the ground troops for his earliest campaigns (according to Foulkes). Sit on their national board. Vote to give taxpayer money to ACORN. Have his relationship with ACORN described by Foulkes as "old friends". Vote as a State Senator overwhelmingly for bills friendly to ACORN and their radical agenda. Be described in Chicago as "the Senator from ACORN". Be introduced to ACORN by Madeleine Talbot who is directly responsible for and who organized such illegal activities as the storming of the Chicago City Council. And then expect us to believe that he is not violating rules by sitting on the board of related organizations,didn't know of strong arm tactics used by ACORN straight out of Alinsky's playbook including intimidation, civil disobedience, encouraging members to get themselves arrested, extorting money form WalMart and other companies, endorsing anti capitalism, anti government, anti establishment agendas.

Is he just too stupid to recognize all of the radical, hateful, anti American characters who seem to all have their nexus around him?

Side: Too stupid to tie his shoes?
jessald(1915) Disputed
3 points

Can we stick to the issues Ink? Stupid personal attacks waste time and distract from what's really important.

Now then, to rebut your smears...

"while Wright is a controversial pastor and a fiery advocate for blacks and liberal causes and a fierce critic of anti-black discrimination, we've seen no evidence that he preaches hatred of or discrimination against whites."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ sliming_obama.html

"The McCain campaign is distorting the Obama-Ayers relationship, and exaggerating their closeness. There is no evidence that Obama has "lied" about his dealings with Ayers."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/did_obama_lie_about_ayers.html

As for ACORN... yeah, these guys look like real sons of bitches... everyone knows trying to help the poor makes you a radical commie.

ACORN
Side: Stick to the issues

Yeah, and radical muslims do great charity work in their neighborhoods as well. Doesn't make them any less unsavory to me.

Side: Dumb like a fox?
Inkwell(328) Disputed
1 point

I have dealt with the issues which I believe are what is important. You don't like the facts so you call them smears. I don't need Fact check to interpret what I hear and read. I have read the text of what I believe to be the entire sermons from which the media took the most inflammatory sound bites. I have read as much as I can stomach of Black liberation theology. I have heard Farrakhan speak. I have heard racist whites speak. I don't need your help or Fact Check's help or the Washington Post's help or Rush Limbaugh's help or Sean Hannity's help to tell me what racism and anti Semitism and hate mongering and anti US words and thoughts are. I am a pretty independent guy that way. I suppose it is not unamerican in your world to say God Damn America or that we brought 9/11 on ourselves or anti catholic to call the pope a no good cracker or not anti semitic to call NY Hymie town. Unlike you I don't need the media to explain what the various speakers of those words meant. I know EXACTLY what Farrakhan meant when he said he doesn't hate whites, he just loves blacks so much. I don't need apologists with their sophistry to explain things to me. I don't need the moral relativism of Wright using slavery 150 years ago to justify his racism today. If Fact check hasn't seen the evidence, it is akin to Tommy, the deaf, dumb and blind boy from the Who's rock opera or its motivation is in question.

I have no real idea what the McCain campaign has said specifically about the Ayers relationship with Obama. If you want to discuss the accusations I have made, or why I hold the opinions I do, I would be glad to discuss them with you. I am not a member of the McCain campaign so I won't defend them. If you point out what they have said which you think is wrong we can discuss it. Meanwhile it is my opinion that there NO QUESTION that Obama has at the very least mischaracterized the relationships and I would say mischaracterized to the extent of lying because he did it in a planned manner and not just as an oversight. My reasoning has already been written but here it is again. I don't believe that some guy in his neighborhood just happened to host his kickoff for his first ever political campaign. I don't believe some guy in his neighborhood gave Obama a job overseeing a $50M foundation. I don't believe they could work for decades traveling in the same circles and repeatedly funneling moneys to each others projects by accident.

As for ACORN? your position is ludicrous and infantile. You don't like the smears, then don't be so ridiculously partisan. They are being investigated in a dozen states, they have been illegally soliciting fraudulent voter registrations for many campaigns. They have paid criminals guilty of identity theft to falsify voter registration cards, coincidence in your mind I am sure. There might be good intentions somewhere in their dim distant past but the means are most definitely NOT justified by the criminal means this group employed. Do you excuse Barney Frank for causing this financial disaster because he only wanted to get poor into houses? ACORN IS bad bad people. They grow their power by corporate extortion just like Jesse Jackson and they employ the Alinsky tactics which Obama trained their leadership in to disrupt the normal course of business or government. But in this case they are radical Marxists, not commies. I am sure the distinction is lost on you though.

Side: Too stupid to tie his shoes?
1 point

Honestly did not know that ACORN was such an evil organization that was based on evil-ness.

But really ACORN seems like a very good organization based on helping those in need of help. I was under the impression of something totally different. I guess don't believe what you hear on Fox News =]

Side: Stick to the issues
-2 points
Tamisan(890) Disputed
2 points

Amoran, you have repeatedly called Obama names such as "stupid" and "fraud" but failed to back them up with facts which support this view. Please cite sources indicating his lack of intelligence and conscious dishonesty. Of the two main presidential candidates, McCain has been caught blatantly lying on camera (see fact analysis of the debates, for starters). Not to say Obama doesn't get a few wrong, but I don't see how you can claim it's maliciously fraudulent. But, I could be wrong. I'm listening, if you've got proof.

Side: Proof please
funkyfrog199(45) Disputed
1 point

wrong, whee is your proof about tht? and stop posting comments that r being harsh. Tasmians rite! wers ur proof?!!?!?! not 2 be rude or anythin but....

Side: Dumb like a fox?
-5 points
-5 points
4 points

Actually, a pretty stupid question. McCain can't seem to remember what he stands for, even simple questions. Palin can't be trusted on her own by her handlers to even do an interview.

This is nonsense. You people listen to Fox News waaaay too much. Talk about uninformed.

Let's reverse the question. What is it about McCain that makes you think he's going to do anything useful? Obama graduated Cum Laude from one of the most prestigious law schools on the planet. McCain graduated fourth from the very bottom of his. And you call Obama stupid?

Side: Dumb like a fox?
1 point

typical response for this type of site. I ask a question about Obama and your response is to attack Palin and McCain. I listen to Fox and CNN just enough to know that your response is typical of what they BOTH do. Don't answer the question, just attack the other guy.

As for school days performance, I guess you must have voted for Bush last time since he got better grades at the same school as John Kerry, right? And you have never called Bush dumb of course for the same reason, right? Silly paragraph of course but it is equivalent to what you just said.

McCain has a record on which to base our expectations. I guess you base yours for Obama on his college degree? Jimmy Carter was supposedly our smartest president and arguably our worst. I feel more comfortable with someone with a record of accomplishment, especially non partisan, non self serving accomplishment, than with someone who has only promises and lies.

Side: Dumb like a fox?

well u know mcain islike a second george bush so wuts the point? hceck out his speeches n ull have proof

Side: Dumb like a fox?
Inkwell(328) Disputed
1 point

actually what I know is that Bush and the right wing Republicans hate McCain because he does not kowtow to them and just vote the party line. He is a lot more independent than Obama is in terms of voting with his party. One candidate in this race has the record of reaching across party lines to put legislating ahead of his career and it sure isn't Obama. McCain has voted with Ted Kennedy of all people. They guy who Obama replaced as most liberal member of the Senate. McCain has bucked his party over and over and just because Obama stares the facts in the face over and over and just denies them doesn't make it true. I don't have to "check out" anything because unlike Obama, the man has a record to run on and not just a bunch of speeches where he flat out lies to the public.

BTW, there is a spell check built in to this system. Doesn't cost anything to use it

Side: Too stupid to tie his shoes?
funkyfrog199(45) Disputed
1 point

PSHHHHH i dont use spell cheks...thanks for offering anyway:)...NOT

Side: Dumb like a fox?
0 points

There is a long history of Obama using unsavory elements to forward his career. He is obviously not picky about who he teams up with to get ahead. No doubt he subscribes to the Churchillian opinion that he would team up with Satan in order to achieve his goals.

When he was a street organizer he joined the largest black church in his neighborhood which just coincidentally was putting more money on the street than any other. That money was more important than the racist hate mongering of the leader of that church.

Similarly at that time he was hired by William Ayres to be chairman of a foundation endowed with $50M. He either didn't care or couldn't be bothered to find out that his benefactor was a founder of the weather underground and had bombed buildings of the US government. I have worked on political campaigns with local newcomers to the political process. Their first meeting/kickoff/get together has always been at the homes of dear, long time friends. I have never heard of one of them kicking off their campaign at the home of just "some guy in the neighborhood".

He was neck deep in ACORN, training them, voting with them, being paid by them and sending government funds their way. He had to know what they were up to and what their tactics and agenda were. His training of Alinsky's tactics ties directly to their "ends justify the means" operations.

Tony Rezko is a developer who committed fraud. Just another guy Obama knew. Except that when Obama bought his house, he wanted a small piece of a neighboring plot of land. He couldn't afford the whole parcel. So Rezko, or more specifically his wife, bought the parcel and sold to Obama the small piece that he wanted to enhance his home.

Farrakhan, Flegler, who else that we don't know yet?

Domestic terrorists, racists, hate mongers, fraudulent slumlords, organized subversives engaged in corporate extortion, fraudulent voter registration.

I know lots of people. I am fairly certain that none of them were domestic terrorists. I have a lot of guys in my neighborhood; none of them has named me chairman of a $50M foundation. I have many acquaintances but none who bought a piece of land for me that I wanted but couldn't afford. I have worked for many worthwhile causes with many groups, but I feel safe saying that none of them are engaged in fraudulent voter registration, fraudulent slumlord activities, corporate extortion, domestic terrorism, were on the FBI ten most wanted, preaching hatred and racism. And if one was, That would not be the kind of trend we see in Obama's relationships. He is obviously comfortable traveling in circles I would not be. This might explain his eagerness to meet with Castro, Ahmadinijad and other notable bad guys. Every one of these associations prove to be very beneficial to Obama's career and/or wallet. I have had friendships and joined groups to advance my career. Again, I believe I can say in good faith that none of them have the rap sheet that Obama's "friends" do. And the further pattern is that Obama tries to distance himself and trivialize each of these relationships. Foulkes from ACORN says he was picked specifically to represent them. But Obama insists that he was just the guy in the firm assigned to the case. Ayres picks Obama to chair the foundation he ran but Obama insists he was just some guy in the neighborhood. Obama estimates he sat in the pews of his church twice a month for 20 years but didn't know Pastor Wright's hateful racism and anti American sentiments which we have all seen him preaching on tape to the cheers of the assembled congregation.

If this guy had come out and said that he had these relationships, that they were part of doing his job on the streets of Chicago, they don't mean he is dirty and he used them for good, legally and morally positive causes, we all probably would have understood. I compare it to a small town business owner joining a restricted country club for the business contacts. We might prefer he had taken the moral high road but the taint is no more damaging than Clinton's using state troopers to procure "dates". You admit it, get it out, throw yourself on the mercy of the American people and move on. Instead Obama tried to make light of his many scummy associations, pretend they were folks he bumped into in the park and we keep finding more and more unsavory details. The pattern is not a series of unfortunate coincidences and he is not dumb enough to "not have known" all of these things about major factors in his rise to where he is now.

Now nothing in any of these relationships by themselves should make him ineligible for the presidency. The pattern? I find it more troublesome. But worst of all is that just like Bill Clinton's scandals weren't about sex and financial impropriety, they were about his facile nature and ease, in fact preference for lying instead of coming clean, Obama has chosen to try and hide, obfuscate, minimize, trivialize, misdirect and flat out lie about his relationships.

Side: Dumb like a fox?
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
4 points

Inkwell! So you're the one yelling bomb Obama at the recent McCain clan rallies! To McCain's credit, he has shot down hate mongers such as yourself in his last raly, however you keep sneakily trying to imply that Obama is some kind of terrorist.

1. Obama joined the church that most of the people in the community he was serving belonged to. Wright made 3 speaches of all the thousands of speaches he made, that have become the focus of this riduculous arguement, more only snipits of those speaches have been focused on. Obama was not present for any of them. If I were to follow your logic from A to B then I would guess you believe Obama to be a radical black seperatist? This in spite of him being raised by a white grandmother? For someone so smart about so many topics Ink, I'm very dissappointed in you.

2. As for the Ayres issue, I highly, highly recomend you read this article that tells the true story of their one meeting, which was not a meeting between them specifically, but a meeting between a bunch of Chicago area leaders,

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry;_id=31217.

Again, your inuendos make you seem like a complete fool once your accusations are held up against the actual facts.

3. The Tony Rezko issue has been resolved. Unless you have some proof that Obama did any more than take a good deal on some property, which anyone else would have taken. So do you Ink? Or are you just throwing out more scary names?

4. Please, be more specific when you throw out "Farrakahn, Flegler, who else that we don't know yet." I hope other CD readers aren't silly enough to simply see your written word and then assume that Obama must really somehow support these people, and that more evil ones are lurking in the shadows simply because you throw it out there. Really Ink, this is a long and sad debate you've started. Are you that evil? Or that dumb in this one respect? Because your arguements sound familiar to other historical arguements that used assumptions and innuendos to demonize people who dared through their actions, words, or very existence, challenge the status quo.

5. Fraudulent voting practices? Were you not alive in 2000? Have you not read any of the news of Conservatives disqualifying voters for things like their registration not having a middle initial and their DL having one? Of people who have claimed bankrupcy not being allowed to vote because, "they have no address to register from." The only voting irregularity the Obama campaign is guilty of is enfranchising millions of Americans with the Constitutional right gauranteed them, that the McCain campaign would rather they not use.

You live in a small sad world Ink, when you think that Bill Clinton's ridiculous trials were about anything more than Conservative revenge, when you actually believe a man, born from a broken home, who was not handed anything, but worked to excell and succeeded, is some kind of terrorist, or black power extremist, in spite of his white ancestory, for no other reason than you disagree with him.

Whether you realize it or not, and I only give you the benefit of the doubt considering some of your other coherent arguements, you are on a slippery slope. All of these issues have been thouroughly studied, and all of them dismissed by all but Faux News and some of the ignorant masses that you may include yourself a part of as of now. If you believed for a second that in the last 20 months of Obama's campaigning, that if any of this had any weight, a hungry media would not have been scratching and clawing to get it, then you are even more oblivious than your above arguement would lead one to believe. These empty accusations, these shadow innuendos lead to nothing but fear and hatred. They do not unite, but work to divide and conquer. They are not worthy of Americans, but should be left for the Nazi's and KKK's of the world. When you've uncovered some actual truth to any of the things you state, offer a link, and don't simply make an accusation then offer as proof something completely different in the hopes that someone will just believe you. Because it is becoming obvious that you are desperate, and would resort to any un-American scheme to scare voters away from Obama.

Side: Too stupid to tie his shoes?
Inkwell(328) Disputed
0 points

Obama joined the church that served his purposes. He joined the church that put the most money on the street when he was a street organizer. He joined a church that already had ten years under Wright. Wright and the church were adherents to the black liberation theology. That was the core of his personal theological philosophy. I have no idea if all the speeches had been taped and are available. I do not know if those were the only three times Wright used that type of inflammatory hateful speech. Either do you, despite your assertion of fact that those were the only ones. I have read what I believe to be the full text of those three speeches. The snippets contained the most telegenic, inflammatory sound bites however the sense of the full sermons was equally offensive. I have no idea if Obama is a black separatist. What I have said over and over is that he has a history of relationships with less than mainstream, less than publicly acceptable people/entities which have repeatedly promoted his career. I have also said that none of them alone would get me all worked up, but his insistence on negating and characterization each of these relationships, homogenizing them to pablum for popular consumption is offensive to me. It is a pattern of behavior I resent in a political candidate.

I live to disappoint. sorry

Ayers. I stand by what I have typed over and over. Without even addressing your suggesting the SF Gate as a reliable source, allow me to provide several articles of my own. You believe who you will. I will follow logic. I still say that no politician has his kickoff at a stranger's home. I still say that they traveled in the same circles and funneled money to each others projects.

I am really tired of folks who don't like my opinions saying that MY facts are innuendo and smears but their facts, even when they come from as clearly partisan a source as the SF Gate are cosmic certainty, unimpeachable.

All I did was lay out the facts. I never said he did anything illegal. The fact is that Rezko helped him buy the property he wanted and couldn't afford on his own. I didn't accuse him of anything illegal. I presented the facts as further evidence that he keeps using "bad people" to get ahead. Enough that it is a trend which should be considered. That is all I said, not that Obama should go to jail. The issue is that part of what Rezko was convicted of is buying and influencing govt officials. So while to you it might be just a "good deal" what is the difference between that "good deal" and the payments to other govt officials for favors? I don't know if Obama did anything wrong. I just know it is one more stink surrounding him.

More specific? You want first names because you don't recognize who I am talking about from their last names? I never said he supported them. I have laid out specifically what I am accusing him of. Don't put words in my mouth. Evil? again, your opinions are pure as the driven snow and mine are evil. Typical. I never said Obama shared Wright's philosophy. I never said he bombed anyone when he was eight years old. I said there are a lot of these unsavory characters in his background and I believe he turned his back on their dark sides in order to promote his career. I feel this is a trend and that he has at the very least mischaracterized each of these relationships and in my opinion has outright lied about them.

Not only was I alive in 2000 when ACORN was already passing out cigs in exchange for votes in Cinncy but I was alive in the 60s and 70s when every dead person in Cook County (Chicago) cemeteries voted twice for Democrats for decades under Daley Sr. I was even alive (barely) when the mob delivered the union vote in West Va for Kennedy in the primary to overcome the perception that a Catholic couldn't win nationally. SO what's your point? That because voter fraud has gone on for decades if not centuries, that we shouldn't prosecute it when we find it? Especially in as widespread and organized a manner as ACORN? You don't know what the Obama campaign has done yet unlike me you pretend you do. I never accused the campaign of any voter fraud. I don't know if they did or didn't commit fraud so I wouldn't accuse them of it. But you cannot know if they did or did not but far be it from you to let something complete and total ignorance of the subject keep you from your expression of fact. I said ACORN HAS committed voter registration fraud and that Obama has ties to ACORN. Those are facts.

You don't know my world, you sanctimonious pissant so don't talk about me as if you know me. You don't know what I think about Bill Clinton. I have never called Obama a terrorist or black power extremist. YOU are the ass who is accusing me of things I never said and who thinks your opinions are fact and anything you disagree with is evil and innuendo. There are many issues that have been put forth in this and any election that didn't gain traction. That doesn't make them irrelevant. Let's face it. This election was decided two years ago when the mid terms were run. This country will vote out a Republican administration because it has to stomach for this war. Simple as that. Just like Bush came in because of Clinton fatigue. It is already a fait accompli. So it doesn't matter what is brought up about Obama because no one cares. The issue here is not what has been studied but what gains traction and what doesn't. I cannot read your link because it goes nowhere. says cannot be found but it looks like you were linking to me a blog entry in the liberal SF Gate. So a blogger is your great source that proves all beyond a doubt? Who is the sad little person here? I don't need a pimple on the ass of humanity like you telling me who I should consider myself part of. I know who I am and what I am. I am sick of self impressed Priam Donna's like you defining me as if you had a clue. Or trying to back me into a corner to defend something I never said. Proof of what I say? This from the idiot who offers a blog in a partisan paper as his proof? I will offer you several. I won't say they are all non partisan but I will offer you a balanced spread of sources.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_obamaayers_connection.html

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/ abcs_jake_tapper_tries_to_pin.html

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/editorials/the_meltdowns_acorn_131274.htm

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-ran-acorns-training-sessions-on-power

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId;=77813

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/obamas_ties_to_acorn_more_subs.html

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/

I have listed right wing sources, left wing sources, and one blog. A whole lot more balanced than your presentation of "evidence".

Again, I have not called Obama any of the things you say i did. I throw all of this out here to show a pattern of associations and a pattern of lying to minimize them. That is all I accuse Obama of, no more. What is sad is your attempt to belittle me for things i never said yet wrap your self in the purity shroud of moral indignation.

Side: Dumb like a fox?
-1 points

Makes you wonder why McCain doesn't attack him more on these issues. Could it be that McCain is no better and is afraid Obama will spill the beens about his relationships? All I know is that the next four years aren't going to be pretty.

Side: Dumb like a fox?