Will Larry Sinclair take down Obama

As a Ron Paul supporter, I don't have an ax to grind against the Democrats in particular in posting this. My concern is this: If Obama gets the nomination, then subsequently the MSM ban on the Larry Sinclair story lifts during the general election, we'll have the likely possibility of a worst case scenario--another Neocon president and war with Iran.

I've been watching this story gain traction on the internet over the past couple months, and I wish Obama would deal with it or the media would start reporting it BEFORE the primaries are over and Clinton is out.

Here is a good recent article summarizing the situation at present, the latest event being Puerto Rico's popular Super Xclusivo coverage.
savagepolitics.com...

Here's the Super Xclusivo video: www.audacityofhypocrisy.com...


[edit on 4/11/2008 by yuefo]

My computer quits when I try to play the video (it's old), but the Larry Sinclair story is old news. He was discredited months ago. There's no reason for Obama to stoop to even addressing the charges again.

P.S. I certainly wouldn't call him a Neocon. Nobody in mainstream politics is very far left, but Obama is if anything left of Clinton.

Originally posted by yuefo
another Neocon president and war with Iran.

We'll have war with Iran eventually - no matter who is in office.
Irans government has made it's intentions clear - wipe Israel out
and destroy America. At some point in the near future they will
act and so will we - no matter who is in office. Venezuela will
join Iran. It will be major. It's coming. There is no stopping it.

reply to post by Sestias


I wasn't saying Obama's a Neocon--obviously he's not. McCain is, however.

As for Larry Sinclair being discredited, how so? Personally I believe him, and if you read the article I linked, the polygraph reeks of a setup gone bad. When the conditions of the polygraph haven't been met, don't you have to ask yourself why?

Also, Obama can't "stoop" to addressing the charges "again," mainly because he hasn't addressed them at all in the first place. Obviously he's hoping this whole thing goes away. That could be a problem though, now that Judge Henry Kennedy (a black judge) has granted a motion filed by Sinclair against online posters telling lies about him. As far as I can tell, the liars are the Obama people, who would do anything to discredit Sinclair without dealing with the facts in the case.

BTW, here's the Sinclair video that started it all. www.youtube.com...



[edit on 4/14/2008 by yuefo]

On April 23, Chicago police acknowledged Sinclair's affidavit regarding communications between him and murdered gay Trinity Church choirmaster Donald Young.

Originally posted by Sestias
Nobody in mainstream politics is very far left

Surely you jest?

The two front runners for the Democratic nomination are so far left they are infringing on socialism for crying out loud!

I am Puertorrican and to tell you the truth my Island has always been in favor of Republican candidates, now that the Island has been taken over by religious money making fundamentalist I will not be surprise that the agenda against any democrat candidate is not backed by this type of money.

But like I say Puerto Rico has always favor Republicans because they do not know better.

Well if he is, he better hurry before Obama starts walking on water.

Originally posted by nyk537
The two front runners for the Democratic nomination are so far left they are infringing on socialism for crying out loud!

You Sir are welcome to cry out loud all night. If you were educated, you'd know that socialism in various forms sweeps the political spectrum.

Originally posted by SteveR
You Sir are welcome to cry out loud all night. If you were educated, you'd know that socialism in various forms sweeps the political spectrum.

I have to tell you right off the bat, I grow weary of members here questioning each others "education" or "intelligence" based on opposing views and/or comments. I think it adds little to nothing to the topic at hand and only serves to show how little you have to add here.

Now, moving on.

Quite honestly you could take anything anyone says and say that in some form it spans the political spectrum. That's a very vague generalized comment that misses it's point entirely.

The initial comment here was that "nobody in politics is very far left". I don't see how you could get much farther left than either of the two front runners for the Democratic party. I also don't see how you could draw a comparison to the levels of socialism sought after by the Democrats, to any of the candidates who were running Republican, including John McCain.

So if you want to answer these questions and add to the discussion, please do so. However, if all you're going to do is question my education and add nothing to the topic at hand, please move on. I'd say there is a nice thread on 9/11 conspiracy or alien abduction that would suite you quite nicely.

reply to post by nyk537


Nyk, I think what SteveR was referring to is the evolution of both parties. The policies of the furthest left Democrat you can find today bears little resemblance to the left of the '60s, for instance. And on the Republican side, the pro-federal Neocons bear the same dissimilarity to traditional Republicans like Ron Paul.

So as the two parties merge on issues like immigration and trade, it becomes more and more difficult to assert that people like Clinton and Obama are "left" and out of the mainstream. Look at how the federal government has grown under Bush! Is he a solcialist? Nowadays they're all, Democrats and Republicans, corporate whores and swindlers. The voter only has a choice between which variety he prefers.