I though Think Progress was on our side. Why are they repeating regressive talking talking points.

Please tell me that you’re joking with this comment. You want to be hidden from the truth? You want everything to be screened beforehand for you? Are you a Republican? I could give you a list of sites that share the same mindset you have.

As an African American and the Mother of a US Military soldier I think I earned the right to have an opinion. I got to see Senator Obama speak in Los Angeles and there were more questions then answers. I never said I think Obama is a Muslim as he is a baptized Baptist. Now my comments come from his actions with at lease two friends he allowed Americans to know he has. Senator Obama admitted a mad choice in picking Rezko those were the Senators words not mine. Obama’s Minister Rev. Wright formed a twenty year friendship. Obama now 47 years old met up with Rev. Wright when he was 27 year old. That’s a long time to be part of someones life. I respect Senator Obama’s decision to end his friendship and anything else he chooses. As of 1964 Blacks were given the right to vote and I understand the years I didn’t have equal rights. I respect the supporters of Senator Obama as my daughter is one of them but I was given Civil Rights in 1964 and will stand up for who and what I believe. I have a child fighting for MY country and I will speak my mind.

Jackie, blacks could vote before 1964. Blacks got to vote before women did.

I couldn’t care less what Obama’s religion is. If he was baptized, not baptized, an atheist, etc. No politician should have to be making his religious stance known. That is not part of the job.

I understand and totally agree with you on Rezko and Wright. I couldn’t believe that Obama said that if he were still at the church, he would have left. That’s Monday night quarterbacking. He had twenty years to leave that church, and he put Wright in a senior position in his staff. He’s trying to do a magic act, and hope that we’re all retarded. His statements didn’t even make a lick of sense. I felt like it was Bush talking all over again. Just mumble, and hope something distracts us.

That’s right, Jackie, you never change – we can always count on you for such profound musings as “Is he a friend of the American People if so how fast will he drop us.” You’re probably one of the few people who still believe that Obama is a Muslim.

What do I believe in?

Cincigal74…a lunatic you can ignore.

Well put Ms. Joanne, hope you had a good day..

Cincigal74…a lunatic you can ignore.

Its legitimate to you, the same way its legitimate for clinton bashers to talk about how they offed vince foster and sold cocaine in arkansas. At this point, Obama is going ot be the democratic nominee, so anyone trying to play “6 degrees of corruption” with anyone obamas ever dealt with is doign the republicans good work for them..

> it looks like influence peddling.

Yeah, so does the entire concept of lobbying.

I really, really dont want to get in an argument with you. In fact, this is going to be the last post i make on this or any related subject. Right now my only side I’m on is keeping George bush from vicariously getting a 3rd term via mccain. If your on a different side, so be it.

I’m not even critiquing the merits of bashing obama or not.

I’m just saying if TP’s going to claim neutrality then posts like this don’t do alot toward making people beleive those claims.

It’s all I’m saying dude…you want to keep arguing with me, by all means, go ahead..

Where’s the marshmallows? I want s’mores!

-GSD

I mean “if they didnt know that..

While there are very clear differences between Democrats and Republicans it’s the simularities that are troubling, they all get their money from the same place.

This is why publicly financed campaigns are vital to our democracy.

http://progressiveworldreview.com

It means TP constantly says its not advocating for any candidate so its tax exempt status wont be threatened. I took them at their word but honestly after seeing them fail to mention Obama is now the official delegate but somehow feeling it apropriate to bring up his name in the context of some distant associate convicted of criminal activity, I’m starting to think that they’d shill for hillary if they thought that 95 percent of people smart enough to use the internet didnt support her and her kooky Republican-lite selctively outraged tactics..

WTF does this statement mean?

come on TP, the “tax exempt neutrality” argument is starting to lose its potency when you do things like this..