Where is the thread about Al-Qaeda dissing Obama?

**lawgator1** · 11-19-2008, 10:03 AM

I thought some of you guys believed that the terrorists supported Obama. Would have thought that their video assailing him would have been top news here. Huh.

**volinbham** · 11-19-2008, 10:06 AM

We knew you would start the thread...

**lawgator1** · 11-19-2008, 10:11 AM

I am certain of two things.

First, Al-Qaeda's opinion of Barack Obama is and always has been irrelevant to whether he ought to be elected and whether, if elected, he would do a good job.

Second, sadly, a healthy percentage of Americans cared about the issue in the first place.

**volinbham** · 11-19-2008, 10:14 AM

Congrats on being better than a healthy percentage of Americans!

Headed For Home · 11-19-2008, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawgator1

I thought some of you guys believed that the terrorists supported Obama. Would have thought that their video assailing him would have been top news here. Huh.

Do you really find it so hard to believe that the terrorists thought that Obama's election would better serve their interests and yet they are ready to assail him as soon as the election is settled?

**GAVol** · 11-19-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Second, sadly, a healthy percentage of Americans cared about the issue in the first place.

A healthier percentage of Americans react to statements from Al Qaeda the same way they do interviews with bad guy pro wrestlers . . . a roll of the eyes and a flip of the channel.

**lawgator1** · 11-19-2008, 10:22 AM

See e.g. Headed For Home.

droski · 11-19-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Second, sadly, a healthy percentage of Americans cared about the issue in the first place.

yes that's why obama won in a landslide.

TennTradition · 11-19-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droski

yes that's why obama won in a landslide.

He said a healthy percentage...not a "majority" ... you can win in a landslide and still have a health portion of people not vote for you or a given reason...

droski · 11-19-2008, 10:42 AM

and the reason people didn't vote for obama was al-qaeda supporting him?

TennTradition · 11-19-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droski

and the reason people didn't vote for obama was al-qaeda supporting him?

He is asserting that a healthy percentage of those who didn't vote for him did so based on either a) their fears of his ability to fight terrorism or b) the fact that they thought Al Qaeda preferred that he be elected. Perhaps law can clarify which point he is making. I would say that the majority of those who voted based on the war on terrorism did so with (a) in mind (and (b) being a result of (a), not because of some sort of suspected collusion with the terrorists).

But, you'll have to ask law what he thinks...my point was that it would be entirely possible to have a healthy percentage of people to not vote for you but still win in a landslide (considering his landslide was in the electoral college, not the popular vote...he won by about 8 points (?) in the popular vote...that's a lot of room for "healthy percentages" of people to not vote for you for a variety of reasons.)

droski · 11-19-2008, 10:48 AM

I agree that is a lot of room, but not much room for that reason. i haven't met a single person who voted for mccain that even mentioned al-qaeda's support of obama. not one.

TennTradition · 11-19-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droski

I agree that is a lot of room, but not much room for that reason. i haven't met a single person who voted for mccain that even mentioned al-qaeda's support of obama. not one.

I think that a majority of people who didn't vote for Obama did so based on the fundamental difference between what they view the role of government to be and what Obama views that role to me. I would say that a healthy percentage voted against Obama because of their fears of how he would handle the war on terrorism....now, not voting for Obama because he was supported by Al Qaeda...I would say that you're right, that is probably a small percentage.

I'm sure a peek at the exit polling would sort some of this discussion out (but probably not the Al-Qaeda support part, unfortunately).

**lawgator1** · 11-19-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TennTradition

He is asserting that a healthy percentage of those who didn't vote for him did so based on either a) their fears of his ability to fight terrorism or b) the fact that they thought Al Qaeda preferred that he be elected. Perhaps law can clarify which point he is making. I would say that the majority of those who voted based on the war on terrorism did so with (a) in mind (and (b) being a result of (a), not because of some sort of suspected collusion with the terrorists).

But, you'll have to ask law what he thinks...my point was that it would be entirely possible to have a healthy percentage of people to not vote for you but still win in a landslide (considering his landslide was in the electoral college, not the popular vote...he won by about 8 points (?) in the popular vote...that's a lot of room for "healthy percentages" of people to not vote for you for a variety of reasons.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by droski

I agree that is a lot of room, but not much room for that reason. i haven't met a single person who voted for mccain that even mentioned al-qaeda's support of obama. not one.

I did not say that people voted one way or the other based on that sole issue. I doubt anyone who was buying into that crap as relevant cared only about that. The same eejits paying attention to what these denuded terrorists think about U.S. politics -- and trying to divine some reason or rationale to have it influence their vote -- no doubt also voted against Obama based on a cocktail of toxic reasons, such as the birth certificate issue or some such other nonsense.

My point really wasn't so much about it affecting people as it was that there was a concerted effort by the fear mongers to try to make it an issue. That is what was so disgusting. And it didn't win and now we can start paying attention to real issues and problems instead of fake ones.

I mean, I'm watching a healthy debate last night on all news channels about the Big 3 bailout issue and I think to myself, finally! Finally we are over red herring distraction tactics and we are talking about whether the auto makers really need this money, whether it is better if they go under and reorganize, whether the unions are driving this or have to at least come to the table to reduce costs, whether the executive pay packages should be an issue, etc.

Frankly, the fact that Obama won, to me, is part of why the debates in this country about policy are going to go back to being about policy and not some whimsically stupid fear of cultish personalities, etc. All I cared about was getting some serious people to start running the show and it looks like we are going in that direction. Disgaree with them? I will, I am sure, on many occassions and issues. As will many people. But its time to have intelligent dialogue about how to cure these problems and to finally get away from what Al-frickin'-Qaeda thinks our policies should be or who would help them.

Thank God.

BigPapaVol · 11-19-2008, 12:53 PM

1. AQ wasn't even a distantly remote factor in this election.

2. AQ is using this little blurb as an opportunity to remain relevant, continue fundraising and recruit more lost idiots. They would have done this had the Ayatollah been elected.