Sunday, September 14, 2008



After reading the article (link above), a group of Obama supporters decided to challenge my criticism of their views pertaining to Cindy McCain’s past addiction to Vicodin and Percocet. While I was a bit more forgiving, they were vehemently unsupportive of Mrs. McCain’s lapse in judgment and uncontrollable addiction. I gather that they are this heated as a result of their unrelenting and irreproachable support of Barack Obama.

The Obama congregates also take issue with her and her husband’s involvement in trying to cover up the substance abuse. Claiming that John McCain is someone that they would not like or trust in the White House based on his “less than honorable actions”. However, I contend that the Messiah Obama worshippers hold a double standard considering that they are the same people who were perfectly okay with President William Clinton’s immoral behavior. And, let’s say that they were not ‘okay’ with Bill’s sexual shenanigans; they evidently are not holding the moral iron to Barack Obama’s feet: He has admitted to ‘dipping and dapping’ in cocaine. He has been associated with men that the American judicial system labels as crooks.

The back and forth is recorded here on Muata Truth Telling. Please enjoy the dialogue. Click on the comment icon below.

Recorded by Brian E. Payne. Inspired by Barack Obama’s Army of Hypocrites.


13 comments:

Muata said...

Reader Response:

See!! She is not equipped to be First Lady, I don't care what nobody says! I'm checking out how they tried to cover up all the details behind her addiction by having a "press conference" about how she has this problem and is seeking treatment. And her husband didn't even know about it!

So--we got a Presidential candidate AND a Vice Presidential candidate who doesn't know what the heck is going on in their own family. Hmmmm, how are they going to run a country?????


-JS

Muata said...

Reader Response:

and with that I REST MY CASE! If they get in, it will be sex and drugs in the big house!

-EFJ

Muata said...

Muata Responds:

Really??

Sex and drugs: will not be anything new. Barack did cocaine and he is/was addicted to nicotine. We all have our issues so why is this a huge issue? How about voting and judging candidates on their record? Both, McCain and Obama are not 'qualified' for president if we are looking at their personal life and other stuff that's irrelevant. I wish all these Obama fans would focus on the REAL issues. Like the economy. I also wish they remove emotion and feel good feelings from their decision making. Obama is having a meltdown and I guess his supporters are too.

-Muata

Muata said...

Reader Responds to Muata:

I agree with you bruh...BUT

The article doesn't necessarily focus as much on the addiction as the illegalities surrounding her addiction, which is relevant. She broke the law and coerced others to break the law, and by her husband not knowing (or acting like he doesn't know, because remember he did try to "smooth" it over) about all that does let him off. If my husband sells drugs out of my house, I'm just as much to blame, even if I'm not there half the time.

Okay, so we're all addicted to something. But when it leads to illegal activity and using others to get to their addiction, then it becomes relevent.

Again I say, she's not equipped to be First Lady, and I thought that at first, even before I found out about all her skeletons in the closet. And I personally don't want a pit bull with lipstick running my country when (if) something happens to McCain.

-JS

Muata said...

Muata Responds to JS:

some of us forget that the man WE put in office was involved in 'criminal' activity: Bill Clinton. Whitewater Scandal. then we wanted him to remain in office after he cheated on his wife in the white house. all of this and we still supported him.

i am just of the belief that many of us are using different criteria in our judgment/analysis. and, simply because some of us are emotionally attached to barack-but not intellectually connected to his views that are liberal. so liberal that they are not good for black folk.

by the way, barack has a questionable association with a man connected to the chicago mafia (Resco) who was a slum lord. that is fact. but guess what? us black folk dismiss this as a result of our emotional blinders.

-Muata

Muata said...

Reader JS responds to Muata:

A. I didn't put Clinton in office because I was voting then and wasn't voting when he ran again.

B. At least we know where Obama and his crew are coming from. McCain and Palin are preaching that they're going to be the "new Republicans" and do things so unlike their party precedessors. Huh? Why do you think they'd need to say that? I'd rather not be deceived.

Yes, I am emotionally tied to Barack Obama, his wife and family. And regardless of whether his views are too liberal even for Black folks, I choose the lesser of the two evils. At the end of the day, when the mud is slung, who do you think is coming to come looking less like a pig?

P.S. I guess the good thing in all this is that we still have Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney to vote for?

-JS

Muata said...

Muata Responds to JS:

what makes some of us think that barack is not selling the idea of change? he is only saying what some of us weak minded americans need to hear. he is like all the rest of politicians: panders, liars, etc. he ain't gonna change a thing, and he knows it. he can't change a BEAST. american politics is that beast. no black man can slay the beast. they will not allow it. he is our modern day jesus headed for the crucifixion. and, i bet you good-hearted black folk will turn on him when nothing changes. just like what the hebrews did to moses.

america is in this position because of uncontrolled and inconsiderate capitalism. isn't this what america wants? so, i guess we are headed for a socialist society?

if barack was white and saying and doing the same things he would be in the eyes of most blacks as a sneaky/sly politician. a white man with gift of gab. like we saw/see clinton. he would not be the next best thing to slice bread.

i use we and us just in general. both are not used to point the finger at you or anyone reading.

-Muata

Muata said...

Reader Responds:

barack may be a politician and in recent history most politicians have not necessarily had "we the people's" interest at heart. where barack comes from - the choices he has made to serve the community and his subsequent be lief that he could help to change the injustices that happen in the community by serving in office i believe makes him a better brand of politician. you are absolutely correct that barack cannot change the way things are done - not on his own, however with an inspired population who truly say ENOUGH and do the work to back it up - CHANGE WILL COME!!!!!!

-SM

Muata said...

Muata Responds to SM:

change has been needed for years. but just like everything else: WE the people have not stood up and made the change. we have been too comfortable, and now we expect the world to change because a man who appears to care says we need it. if the population was inspired we would have changed all this crap with a revolution years ago. unlike our ancestors we are somewhat politically lazy and shiftless. now that gas is high like it is in most countries we are all upset. now that there are no jobs we are fussing. in most countries unemployment has been a century problem. america is hurting and we are crying the blues. we are where we are because we took for granted our politics. we put people in office we like instead of people we need. we put celebraties in office. pathetic.

-Muata

Muata said...

SM Responds to Muata:

i agree that our political choices may not always have served us best - i disagree that now is like any other time - while many of us may feel a certain attachment or pride in barack's run for president - considering what the other side has accomplished in trashing this country - listening to the lies, manipulations and watching the candidates it is clear to me that barack is not comfortable with mud-slinging and has done his best to keep it in the higher sphere. has he pandered - yes he has, in my opinion, and i ranted about it, however, at the end of the day it is not about kool-aid, he is the best choice at this time and no there has not been an inspirational leader in this country since the deaths of martin, john and bobby and change did occur on their watches.

-SM

Torrance Stephens - All-Mi-T said...

all she need is a raid show and we can call her Rush

Muata said...

Muata Responds to SM:

I was really prepared to end my responding until I thought about the statement you made (quoted below).

I just had to share this (video) with you considering your belief: " it is clear to me that barack is not comfortable with mud-slinging and has done his best to keep it in the higher sphere"

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/09/obama_campaign_ad_attacks_mccain_for_lack_of_l33t_skillz-2.html

http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1785350078

"I am Barack Obama and I approve this message."

These ads are considered "mudslinging" by many. It is clear that this will continue until November 4. It is the nature of politics worldwide. If we believe that Barack Obama is a politician who has not and will not resort to "mudslinging" we are fooling ourselves. He has not and will not be above what it takes to convince Americans on who to vote for come November. You know as well as I do that he will do what it takes to win (within reason). If not, he will not come close to winning. Evidently, Americans LOVE this circus. The numbers prove it.

By the way, I agree he is the better candidate of the two. However, he will not be as impactful in 8yrs as we would like. So, really does it make much of a difference considering even with McCain in the White House meaningful change will be almost impossible because of the mess that was created by world events, circumstance, and Mr. Bush? I don't expect my life to change too much with Barack in office. Just can't see it happening anytime soon.

Muata said...

Reader SM Responds:

to define my definition of mudslinging in a campaign: - lying - going after a candidate personally - the republicans do it well, and i don't see barack being comfortable with it, - has his campaign slanted some stuff to their perspective, absolutely, however outright lying - haven't seen it from this side - mccain and palin on the other hand....

i don't feel that answering false attacks or presenting the facts from one's perspective is mudslinging. :-) mccain has said he doesn't 'know" how to use a computer, not that he 'wasn't able' to use it. mccain has stated he doesn't know much about the economy and from where i stand his recent comments regarding same prove it. mccain has fought against earmarks, and sarah palin has hired lobbyists to go after them. where is the mudslinging? barack did not attempt to teach kindergartners' sex education, he did however seek to protect them by educating them on what is, and isn't proper with regards to their 'person' and individuals' touching their 'person'. don't see anything heinous there, however mccain's ad regarding same was sleazy, and designed to play on fear - as is much of his campaign.

as for the world not changing much for you personally with either barack or mccain in office - it's not just about you, or me, or any one of us for that matter - it is about the future - my kids, your kids, their kids and all of us living well - it will take work to make better, what it took laziness, carelessness and greed to create.

barack's years long vision of a better world , where if we cannot agree we can at least work toward the 'common' good is a better start to beginning the work on a national level, than going with the sequel and continuing to sit in the shit. :-)

again i will say - they are all politicians - i feel barack is a different kind of politician. one i can stomach and i believe wants this country to be for ALL the people - not just the top 1 or so %. :-

at least for me, and my life.

peace & blessings,

-SM