Sunday, June 22, 2008

Freedom quiz

With Independence Day around the corner, my brother emailed me this 30 question quiz. I had fun with it, scoring 28/30.

Tim White

23 comments:

cedar lane said...

I scored 29 out of 30. Can never remember how many Amendments there are to the Constitution!

I liked this one :

Who becomes President if both the President and Vice President die?

A) The Speaker of the House
B) The Chief Justice
C) The Secretary of Defense
D) The First Lady

In case Obama gets elected, thank God the correct answer is not D!

Anonymous said...

cedar lane

please explain...

cedar lane said...

It's just that we don't need someone who's never been proud of America (Michelle Obama) as president, or first lady for that matter.

Despite their attempts to backpeddle on that comment, her Freudian slip reveals their true feelings. Just ask their pals, convicted terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn.

Anonymous said...

Obama's defense of his association with Ayres is that the bombings by Ayers and his gang happened 40 years ago, when Obama was only a child.

cedar lane said...

The point is that Obama once again shows poor judgment.

Ayers has more recently stated that he only regrets they didn't kill more people.

If Obama has such poor judgment in choosing his own associates, how can he be trusted as president to make the best appointments to run the country?

Anonymous said...

oh please. you have nothing. Just stop trying to stand in the way of real change. Move along.

redtown said...

Oh please, you have nothing

Notice how the above Obama supporter, unable to dispute the FACTS of Obama’s connection with convicted terrorist bomber William Ayers, just pretends that this truth means nothing.

The facts are not disputed by Obama. When Hillary Clinton mentioned it in a debate, Obama countered that Bill Clinton had granted pardons to Puerto Rican terrorists. Gee, we should all feel safer with Obama rather than Clinton.

It means nothing that a possible president of the United States knowingly accepts the support of terrorists? Ayers told the NY Times in 2001, “I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

But don’t pay any attention to that. Don’t question Obama’s judgment. He’s for change, change, change, change.

Anonymous said...

Obama’s friends. First it was his minister, whom he called “my mentor and uncle”, Rev God-Damn-America Wright. Then it was the Mafia slumlord Tony Rezko, now a convicted felon. Then it was the terrorist bomber Bill Ayers who wishes he had murdered more people.

But pay no attention to any of that. Obama is for change. Drink his Kool Aid and feel good about yourself.

Anonymous said...

As for Ayers, of course he is connected, but I don't see how that reflects poorly on Obama -- Ayers has ties to lots of folks in Chicago and it's just not that big of a deal.

If you want to talk about poor judgement or character, what about McCain calling his wife a "c***" and a trollop? That really does say a whole lot about McCain whereas the Ayers connection says absolutely nothing about Obama.

The country is falling apart and cedar lane is busy insulting Michelle Obama.

Most republicans object to Obama on the issues, but they know that their own positions are unpopular, so they attack Obama personally. Just stick to the issues and let America decide.

That being said, character is important. And, legitimate attacks are fair game. For example, the McCain comment about his wife is very telling. However, Obama knowing Ayers tells us very little when put in context. However, you have nothing, so you keep at it.

cedar lane said...

Like you say, character is important, and Obama himself admitted that his association with Rev. Wright is a legitimate issue.

Why wouldn’t Obama’s knowingly associating with terrorist and Mafia criminals be any less a legitimate issue? You say it’s no big deal. I say it shows his bad judgment.

There is no evidence that McCain ever called his wife those names. You’re just parroting a false rumor. One book made that claim, and all the liberal opinion blogs spread it. There are no independent media reports that McCain ever said any such thing.

On the other hand, Obama’s associations with Ayre, Rezko, and Wright are not disputed, and they show his patterns of poor judgment and questionable associations. Character and judgment do matter.

Anonymous said...

If McCain had a convicted lyncher in his campaign who had recently told the NYT that “I don't regret the lynchings. I feel we didn't do enough" -- I doubt that Obama’s supporters would say it’s no big deal. Or if it was someone who’d blown up abortion clinics, I doubt they’d give him a pass.

But Obama and his supporters give a pass to Bill Ayers who blew up buildings and killed innocent people in the 60’s. How politically correct. How disingenuous. What shameless relativism.

Anonymous said...

"If McCain had a convicted lyncher in his campaign..."

As if Ayers is in Obama's campaign or even close. Relativism my ass...

Now, the Wright stuff does reflect on his character, just as Hagee reflects on John's.

Anonymous said...

As if Ayers is in Obama's campaign or even close.

In fact Ayres was a big fundraiser for Obama in his state senate campaigns. If Ayres had committed lynchings instead of blown up buildings, would Obama still have accepted his support? Relativism indeed.

And you don’t deny Obama’s close connection to Mafia slumlord Tony Rezko who was also a major fundraiser for Obama. Rezko is now a convicted felon, but we don’t want to talk about that.

Now, the Wright stuff does reflect on his character, just as Hagee reflects on John's.

Huge difference. Hagee was never McCain’s “mentor and uncle” for 20 years. Hagee never shaped McCain’s views and values as Wright shaped Obama’s. It’s a totally specious comparison.

As you said, the Wright stuff does reflect on Obama’s character. And so does the Ayers stuff and the Rezko stuff and God knows what other surprises.

Anonymous said...

Of course, I should probably mention that for me the Wright stuff inspired more, not less, confidence in Obama as president. After all, Wright is no villian. He's just not something with which white america is familiar. As for getting elected, the association was a poor choice. So was his name change. I am glad he has lived his life on his own terms. It's refreshing to see that kind of courage in a pol.

On the other hand, Hagee is batcrap crazy. AND, McCain SOUGHT his endorsement.

As for Rezko, what exactly is your concern? It was stupid for him to purchase the land from him, and the two were too friendly for my tastes. However, the purchase itself was legit.

But, if it's guilt by association that gets your goat...

McCain and Liddy?

Anonymous said...

” for me the Wright stuff inspired more, not less, confidence in Obama as president. After all, Wright is no villian.”

At last, a true confession from the Obama camp, one which supports the view that Obama is not as moderate as he pretends to be and really has a more radical leftwing agenda.

Again, Hagee was not McCain’s “mentor and uncle” for 20 years as Wright was to Obama. McCain’s error was one of strategy, not character.

You minimize Obama’s involvement with convicted slumlord Tony Rezko. It wasn’t just one land deal (where Obama bought land at $300,000 below asking price). Obama’s involvement with Rezko goes back 18 years, and Rezko was a major fundraiser for Obama in his 2004 race for US Senate.

This doesn’t sound like “change”; it’s more of the same old sleazy money in politics, only with underworld connections.

Obama will have racist Al Shapton’s endorsement and McCain will have Liddy’s endorsement. I’m more concerned that Obama thinks like Sharpton on a number of issues.

Here is why Obama will not be elected even though Bush is largely to blame for the souring economy and an unpopular war. (BTW, I’m an independent, not a Republican).

Obama will not be elected because he is too new, too untested on the national scene. His meteoric rise in four short years from an obscure state legislator would be like Vickie Nardello becoming the presidential nominee in 2012. Hillary was right: experience counts. In the end, people will be more concerned about Obama’s lack of a solid track record than they will be smitten by his skilled oratory.

The Republicans managed to repudiate the extreme right this year and nominate a fairly moderate candidate in McCain. Too bad the Democrats fell for the gifted orator rather than pick someone with a more solid national record.

Anonymous said...

He's too moderate for my tastes, but I do think (hope) that he really is further to the left than he likes to paint himself. I worry that Obama may be a little two willing to reach across the aisle at a time when the Republican party is hell-bent on locking us down, tearing us apart, and selling what's left for scrap.

I just really don't think you're actually worried about the Rezko stuff. I'd wager that you're far more worried about his policies and positions. And, as far as that goes, I'd also wager you're more worried that he thinks like FDR than you are that he thinks like a Sharpton.

Anonymous said...

Obama “is too moderate for my tastes, but I do think (hope) that he really is further to the left than he likes to paint himself.”

ARE YOU LISTENING, AMERICA ?

”I just really don't think you're actually worried about the Rezko stuff.”

And you know this how ? You have esp? At any rate, the sleazy association of Obama and Rezko stands on its own as a legitimate issue.

”… you're more worried that he thinks like FDR than you are that he thinks like a Sharpton.”

No, I really am worried that he thinks like Al Sharpton and the rest of the lunatic left. And I really do wish the national Dems were more like FDR and JFK (as I wish the national GOP were more like Ford and Bush Sr., but McCain comes close to that).

Anonymous said...

"ARE YOU LISTENING, AMERICA ?"

If they are, McCain has no chance. Liberal positions are mainstream.

Anonymous said...

Actually, most Americans are moderate-to-conservative leaning on most issues.

According to a 2007 Pew survey*, 35% of Americans identified as moderate, 36% as conservative, and only 25% as liberal. This will favor McCain's moderate conservatism over Obama's extreme liberalism.

BTW, thank you for confirming that Obama really is a stealth left-winger who's only faking it as moderate.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States

Anonymous said...

"According to a 2007 Pew survey*, 35% of Americans identified as moderate, 36% as conservative, and only 25% as liberal. This will favor McCain's moderate conservatism over Obama's extreme liberalism."

Nice switcheroo. I said they are in agreement with the liberal positions, not whether or not most Americans identify themselves as libs,cons, etc

In fact, that divide is likely the reason you jump at the opportunity to say, 'Ha! He's more to the left.' While most americans poll as liberals, they don't identify themselves as liberals. Thanks to the efforts of Gingrich and others, many even think of it as a dirty word without realizing that they're own views are best described as liberal! It's a damned shame.

However, it's interesting though to study the techniques that brought us to that point.

This is from the wiki on using NLP to persuade:

Example 3 - Anchoring (verbal): Newt Gingrich was working with Republican leaders and conservatives in the media to frame the word "liberal" as something akin to "traitor," an effort that ultimately led to his infamous "secret" memo to GOP leaders titled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control." [4] "Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Apply these [words] to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party:"

Decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis... urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie... liberal... they/them... unionized bureaucracy... ‘compassion’ is not enough... betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow... traitors... sensationalists...endanger... coercion... hypocrisy... radical... threaten... devour... waste... corruption... incompetent... permissive attitudes... destructive... impose... self-serving... greed... ideological... insecure... anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs... pessimistic... excuses... intolerant... stagnation... welfare... corrupt... selfish... insensitive... status quo... mandate(s)... taxes... spend(ing)... shame... disgrace... punish (poor...)... bizarre... cynicism... cheat... steal... abuse of power... machine... bosses... obsolete... criminal rights... red tape... patronage.

On the other hand, Newt suggested that Republicans should also "memorize as many as possible" of the following "Positive Governing Words" to apply to any reference to Republicans or GOP efforts:

Share... change... opportunity... legacy... challenge... control... truth... moral... courage... reform... prosperity... crusade... movement... children... family... debate... compete... active(ly)... we/us/our... candid(ly)... humane... pristine... provide... liberty... commitment... principle(d)... unique... duty... precious... premise... care(ing)... tough... listen... learn... help... lead... vision... success... empower(ment)... citizen... activist... mobilize... conflict... light... dream... freedom... peace... rights... pioneer... proud/pride... building... preserve... pro-(issue): flag, children, environment... reform... workfare... eliminate good-time in prison... strength... choice/choose... fair... protect... confident... incentive... hard work... initiative... common sense... passionate.

The result a decade of politicians and talk show hosts memorizing and parroting Newt’s word list is that, in much of the public’s mind, morality and patriotism are associated with conservatives while liberals are thought of in the terms described above.

Anonymous said...

That’s all very interesting, but BOTH parties and candidates hire consultants and strategists to manipulate visual images and audial/ word associations to suit their purposes. Newt Gingrich didn’t do anything that the Democrats don’t also do.

I want to reiterate my original premise and that of the several people who’ve echoed my views above --

Obama’s choice of associates (Ayers, Rezko, Wright) displays a pattern of poor judgment, if not a compromised personal integrity.

It was Obama himself who made his “good judgment” the key issue in the primary (versus Hillary’s poor judgment in voting for Iraq).

These were not nominal associations, though you’ve tried to dismiss them as insignificant.

Ayers, the convicted bomber, was a big fundraiser for Obama. Rezko, the convicted Mafia money launderer, was a major fundraiser for Obama who personally enriched Obama. Then there is the racist Mr. Wright. And Obama never repudiated any of these associations until he was forced to by public opinion -- which itself is very telling of his judgment and character.

Here’s an interview with NPR’s Juan Williams, a liberal African American. Williams cites Obama’s frequent “flip-flops when convenient”, and Obama’s “playing corners and games”. He questions Obama’s character and judgment, and concludes, “We really don’t know who Obama is.”

http://youtube.com/watch?v=exhyMMhdRTk

Anonymous said...

Is Obama in bed with sleazy developers, or is he just naïve and incompetent??

From today’s (liberal, pro-Obama) Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/

“As a state senator, (Obama) coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.

“But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

“Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.”

This gives a whole new meaning to Obama’s slogan, ”Yes we can!”

Obama's dealings with the convicted Mafia slumlord Tony Rezko is just the tip of the iceberg.

Anonymous said...

And they thought Hillary had *baggage.*