Who do you think is going to actually publish that type of information due to it's content?
Controversy actually sells quite well, you know. Either way, it still doesn't make him credible. YOU were the one who used his book as proof of reliability, all I did was say any bugger could've done it, which is true.
Don't disqualify yourself before actual thought occurs.
What?
You can remain in the dark. It matter's not to me. I can't reiterate the history of the earth for you which is what seems to be required at this point.
No, i just want you to give me a reason for searching around looking for responses and counterarguments. I've argued with people like you before, and typically even if i find answers to the things in the video the next step is another video by someone different, who i then have to disprove. Asking for some outright positions to study is NOT trying to remain in the dark, but answering every video on youtube is something i'm not prepared to waste time doing, so stop getting dramatic.
The facts mentioned in that video speak for themselves and are not even under dispute. That's the funny part.
No fact speaks for itself, you're using meaningless terms again. You're expecting me to believe something just because both you and someone on youtube said it. Do you understand why i can't work on that principle?
Sometimes you just have to admit you don't know as much as other people and admit when you're wrong.
Resorting to arrogance instead of giving me something concrete to work on and discuss is not helping your case. I'm still willing to discuss things. Just because YOU hold this man in high regard doesn't mean I should.
The headshrinkers
They want everything
My Uncle Bill
My belisha beacon
Okay, you know what? I'll critique it to a point, as a sign of good faith. I'm not going to spend ages looking for minor things but i will try to search for the more major point if i find them misleading. However, i'm not going to just be linked to another video after this. You have to answer my points yourself, in argument, with some degree of sourced work.
Remember that i don't have to accept the narrative of the video as well as fact checking outright. Facts can be manipulated, and i'll explain where i think that's happening if i encounter it.
I'll post the rest of it here in this post when i'm done, but i'm putting this here first because it'll take a while. This way you know my intentions and can be ready to debate.
Note that i'm not agreeing to take this guy (or similar others) as an accredited source - from here on in i'll need more substantive information.
Fair enough?
Point one
Basic, easily fact-checked error: 10-12 seconds in, he states both Paul and Obama voted against the Iraq war. Obama wasn't a Senator when the Iraq war was authorised, he couldn't have voted against it.
Does he mean he merely spoke out for it? To what extent and when? What does "support" mean? You see why i asked for sources now? I'm not saying he did or he didn't, but it's a part of his argument which needs to be sourced.
point two
Between 30-50 seconds i think.
The mention of AIPAC seems to be implying Obama's support for the killing of Lebanese we just saw in pictures. It's not explicitly stated, but it's a persuasive tactic not backed up by any actual argument that i've seen.
Going to speak at a conference there is different to being on their side 100%. Supporting the statehood or Israel is different to condoning all the actions they have taken.
I'll need a source for the money he takes from the AIPAC group. Again, not saying if it's right or wrong, but it needs sourcing. If nothing else, assuming he did take money, the size of the donation is critical to the point.
He then says Obama is "completely pro-Israel" because of this - another unproven statement, since one can be pro-Israel to an extent without loving everything they do - and goes again with the "thus obama supports bulldozing of homes and civilians" line, which is a bullshit tactic, in the same way that someone who supports the US doesn't necessarily support the killing of Iraqi civilians.
Images of bulldozed homes, appeal to emotion while trying to somehow implicate Obama supports this behaviour.
"Apartheid" claim is quite tenuous. Forgive the wiki link, but it's a well-sourced article at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid
This is in no way supporting the actions of israel, you understand. It's outright wrong about white/black meaning jew/palestinian - Arabs with Israeli citizenship retain the same rights as Jews with citizenship. The difficulties in getting citizenship are definitely worth discussing, but it's another issue for another day. This is meant to be about Obama.
Lots of news reporting
Point three
somwhere between 1:30 and 2:30, i didn't jot it down
"Considered missile strikes on Iran and Pakistan" line. Tries to say it's equivalent to Bush, which is wrong. Here's a thought experiment example:
Two people are being asked what it'd take to get them so angry they'd try to fight a man in a bar. One man says "If he looked at me funnily", the other says "If he drew a knife and started making noises about attacking". Are both sides the same? I'm not saying the specific positions are equivalent to Bush and Obama, but what he's saying is "If you would ever attack anyone for any reason, you're the same as someone who'd attack for bad reasons". Poor, inherently flawed logic from the guy.
Point four - a biggie
about 2:30-2:50
Outright wrong when saying Obama voted for a bill categorising the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organisation. That bill was the Kyl-Lieberman bill, which can be seen here to show Obama as not being present for the vote: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13015.html
Not only that, but in one of the Democratic debates i saw, Obama directly criticised Clinton for voting for it. Possibly from November, i forget the exact one, maybe the youtube debate? He specifically stated by declaring them as such she could be giving Bush carte blanche to invade. Google search for "obama clinton iranian guard criticism" or some variant and you should get some results. As i recall, he wasn't able to get to the vote because he got the notification from Harry Reid on short notice and was away campaigning somewhere or other. Either way, he's spoken out against it, so there'd be no real reason for him to vote for it if he had been able to make it.
This guy isn't quite the savant he was made out to be, to be honest. Basic errors that could be corrected within a few minutes, lots of emotional appeals and assumptions, nothing more than a slightly above average Paul supporter thus far.
The facts mentioned in that video speak for themselves and are not even under dispute. That's the funny part.
Sometimes you just have to admit you don't know as much as other people and admit when you're wrong.
Doesn't seem to be quite as accurate now, does it? How funny are these basic errors that you presented as fact? Maybe you need to start vetting your sources a little more.
sub-point two
3:20-3:45
Cutting off Israel could easily cause some factions of the Arab world to begin hostilities. If Israel responds with the same disproportionate force it usually uses, it could get messy and they wouldn't even be listening to us. It's a debatable point to be sure, but he's not taking into account effects that cutting israel off may have on the region's stability. Ending the Iraq war point is fine though. This particular "fact" most certainly is under dispute.
sub-point three
4:00-6:00 or so
The gold standard is not seen as a solution to any current economists other than those who still follow von Mises and his lot. To be perfectly frank, this guy doesn't strike me as having particularly in-depth knowledge of economics. If you're saying that the gold standard is an indisputably good system and that there's no debate to be had about it, then you're nuts. Whether you support it or not, you have to know that it's disputable. Not only that, but there's been very little about Obama for quite a while.
point five
6:30ish
Same unsourced claims about Obama taking money (the amount and why is utterly relevant) from AIPAC. The spying charges are serious but aren't exactly sinister - two people from AIPAC got told about the US policy on Iran. I understand the severity of leaking national defence secrets but it's not as though they were wiretapping american people or some such, they were talking directly to an officer of the US. That's a VERY misleading argument, as it makes the Israelis seem hostile to the US. Unethical and dangerous as that breach of security may be, it's not quite what people imagine when "spying" is mentioned.
Palestinian footage from here on out, hard-hitting stuff but seems again like a smear to attach Obama's name to this as though he is partially responsible.
There, those are my thoughts. It may seem disorganised (i did have a shower in the middle somewhere), and some points are weaker than others, but i don't think your claim that it was all indisputable truth is even close to reality.
The headshrinkers
They want everything
My Uncle Bill
My belisha beacon
Why is he even talking about strikes on iran? what did iran do again? He's speaking like all the others. thats the point. if bin ladin is in pakistan, he's gonna bomb pakistan. Yeah thats so much better. where are his new ideas? all this change he goes on about? what about the vote for the patriot act update?
Allow me to use an analogy. Personally, i am a pacifist. Sincerely. Don't get me wrong, i'm from a tough neighborhood. i CAN fight. i choose not to. i don't like to. Not because of fear, but because of personal ethics. i am much more inclined to be a diplomat and that is always my first choice. it will take ALOT to get me to whoop somebody's ass. But i am not so naive as to "take that option off the table". Mess with my wife and kids, for example, and you're in trouble. My wife and kids know that i am not a hot head looking for a fight and will always seek to forgo a fight in favor of a diplomatic solution. i have three sons i am trying to pass these ethics onto. My wife and kids can also rest assured, however, that i will not punk out on them if it becomes necessary. i will, in fact, protect them. That doesn't make me a violent man or a "war monger". Get it?
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Allow me to use an analogy. Personally, i am a pacifist. Sincerely. Don't get me wrong, i'm from a tough neighborhood. i CAN fight. i choose not to. i don't like to. Not because of fear, but because of personal ethics. i am much more inclined to be a diplomat and that is always my first choice. it will take ALOT to get me to whoop somebody's ass. But i am not so naive as to "take that option off the table". Mess with my wife and kids, for example, and you're in trouble. My wife and kids know that i am not a hot head looking for a fight and will always seek to forgo a fight in favor of a diplomatic solution. i have three sons i am trying to pass these ethics onto. My wife and kids can also rest assured, however, that i will not punk out on them if it becomes necessary. i will, in fact, protect them. That doesn't make me a violent man or a "war monger". Get it?
Yes, but you would not go around with those threats to everyone, would you? "Hey, I'll fuck you up, I dont want to, but I will". it's just gonna get people angry, so by obama even suggesting these things it will only anger the other sides. I think he should avoid all this tough talk. simply work on why people are so pissed off at america. things he avoids doing.
Everyone knows america is sorta tough, no need to say it.
It seemd to me at the caucus, that obama was by far the most powerful speaker, and his views are 10 times better than everyone elses. I would like to see obama win. Anyone is better than that piece of crap we have in there now.
*Marker in the Sand Fanclub * HNIC
Philly- 2005, 2013, 2016, 2024
Camden 2000, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2022, 2023 Philly Spectrum 2009 x4 - We closed that MFER Down Proper Baltimore- 2024
DC- 2006, 2008
New York- 2008, 2010
Boston - Fenway 2016 (night 2) , 2024 (night1) East Rutherford, New Jersey- 2006
Chicago - Lollapalooza 2007
Seattle- Gorge 2005
EV Solo- DC x2, Baltimore x2 , Newark NJ x2, Tower Theater x2
And I'm not living this life without you, I'm selfish and clear
And you're not leaving here without me, I don't wanna be without
My best... friend. Wake up, to see you could have it all
Yes, but you would not go around with those threats to everyone, would you? "Hey, I'll fuck you up, I dont want to, but I will". it's just gonna get people angry, so by obama even suggesting these things it will only anger the other sides. I think he should avoid all this tough talk. simply work on why people are so pissed off at america. things he avoids doing.
Everyone knows america is sorta tough, no need to say it.
i don't think anything he said was threatening. He didn't really "suggest" anything. Just common sense. Obama, i believe is EXACTLY the kind of diplomat we need to improve our standing and rapport with the rest of the world.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
i don't think anything he said was threatening. He didn't really "suggest" anything. Just common sense. Obama, i believe is EXACTLY the kind of diplomat we need to improve our standing and rapport with the rest of the world.
Do you have specific examples that will lead me to believe he is exactly the kind of diplomat we need? He has a pro israel stance to start off with. What possible reason can he have for support of a state like that? apartheid israel.
Do you have specific examples that will lead me to believe he is exactly the kind of diplomat we need? He has a pro israel stance to start off with. What possible reason can he have for support of a state like that? apartheid israel.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security
where does Obama say that he's favors one over the other when he says that he wants to work toward a two state solution?
not that i don't think that the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians is anything short of horrendous. however i haven't seen anything where Obama has said that he favors it or anything to that effect
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security
where does Obama say that he's favors one over the other when he says that he wants to work toward a two state solution?
not that i don't think that the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians is anything short of horrendous. however i haven't seen anything where Obama has said that he favors it or anything to that effect
That above obama insert is what Bush even has been saying, you know, "two states" "peace and security". I mean it sounds all nice I guess.
But if you start to refer to his own words. Like "israel our strongest ally in the mid east" "Our friend". I mean is he stupid? Israel is far from an ally.
Ok besides that. You wont find him even coming that close to a nice smile towards the palestinians. I would say "Israel needs to stop building settlements, stop the invasions into gaza and help the suffering of the palestinians, peace in the middle east, the end of palestinians fighting towards israel can only happen when israel learns to respect the people it lives next to, not continue to Push them into the waters."
But I guess he doesnt feel that way and he would not want to upset his close friends.
Only one candidate talks about going against all of the above issues, the rest (except Kucinich and Gravel) are just playing along...stringing you all along.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
That above obama insert is what Bush even has been saying, you know, "two states" "peace and security". I mean it sounds all nice I guess.
But if you start to refer to his own words. Like "israel our strongest ally in the mid east" "Our friend". I mean is he stupid? Israel is far from an ally.
Ok besides that. You wont find him even coming that close to a nice smile towards the palestinians. I would say "Israel needs to stop building settlements, stop the invasions into gaza and help the suffering of the palestinians, peace in the middle east, the end of palestinians fighting towards israel can only happen when israel learns to respect the people it lives next to, not continue to Push them into the waters."
But I guess he doesnt feel that way and he would not want to upset his close friends.
where and in what context did he say those things? link please
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security
sure Bush has said that he'd like to see a two state solution. however what the hell diplomatic measures has he undertaken to try to bring anything like that about? at least ole Bubba gave a go at it
Quoted directly from transcripts of Obama's AIPAC speech:
As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the
Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected
priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war
in Afghanistan. And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the
greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.
Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His
words contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragic
history.
Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President
Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his
country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as
the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to
Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the
pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington
and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60
years, it is time to deny the deniers.
In the 21^st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United
Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But
that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has
the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.
The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to
have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we
should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained
and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our
primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.
Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a
new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia
and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest
that could fuel greater instability in the region—that’s not just bad
for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more
dangerous and unpredictable place. Other nations would feel great pressure
to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran’s backing
would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear
umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran
could spread this technology around the world.
To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead
tough-minded diplomacy.
This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we
conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in
clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would
include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more
determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing
the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran’s major
trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States
who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean
unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure
on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation
of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused
approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own
alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.
We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize
common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran. We should stress to the
Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by
failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran
into Gaza.
The United States’ leverage is strengthened when we have many nations
with us. It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have a
profound impact on Iran’s economy. Iran is highly dependent on imports
and foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment where
our allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in the
world’s best interests, could help bring Iran to the table.
We have no quarrel with the Iranian people. They know that President
Ahamadinejad is reckless, irresponsible, and inattentive to their
day-to-day needs which is why they sent him a rebuke at the ballot box
this fall. And we hope more of them will speak out. There is great hope
in their ability to see his hatred for what it is: hatred and a threat to
peace in the region.
At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to
our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military
assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense
programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and
repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. And
when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right
to defend itself. Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By using
Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields,
Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict,
and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there. That’s why
we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701,
which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution
which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of
weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in
the region, must end.
These are great challenges that we face. And in moments like
these, true allies do not walk away. For six years, the administration has
missed opportunities to increase the United States’ influence in the
region and help Israel achieve the peace she wants and the security she
needs. The time has come for us to seize those opportunities."
Sounds like Barak is tits deep for more war, military assistance, and involvement in the middle east to me. If you notice he seems to dodge any question on pulling the troops out of Iraq (correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing is off the table militarily for this guy. Scratch the surface and he's isn't anti-war anything, quite the opposite in fact.
He'll do exactly as he's told, and when, and allocate more troops, and support additional military intervention all the way.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Only one candidate talks about going against all of the above issues, the rest (except Kucinich and Gravel) are just playing along...stringing you all along.
:rolleyes:
the dude in that youtube didn't even bother to check the site (nndb) that he was telling people to check out for themselves to see what organizations the candidates belong to. because if he had he would see that neither Barack or Michelle Obama have anything at all to do with the CFR or AIPAC.
it's one thing not to like a candidate or not agree with what they have to say but to make up shit just in order to try to make them look bad is just simply assinine
neither Barack or Michelle Obama have anything at all to do with the CFR or AIPAC.
That's one of the more hilarious things I've heard in a while. Obama is a staunch AIPAC supporter, and it's widely known he's a member of the CFR.
Regardless of who owns that site, and how it's been kept since that video was made. It matters little how it chooses to represent, edit, delete, etc.. people in this regard.
I could dig up a ton of AIPAC links...but it's pointless for me to do so. I already know about it.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I can see how easy it is to fall on the Obama wagon, it seems cool to think that we may have a president that looks so different, so it feels different. But look past the hype and the face. Then it should be easy to see that he's the same as the others. Which is not a good thing.
That's one of the more hilarious things I've heard in a while. Obama is a staunch AIPAC supporter, and it's widely known he's a member of the CFR.
Regardless of who owns that site, and how it's been kept since that video was made. It matters little how it chooses to represent, edit, delete, etc.. people in this regard.
Michelle Obama
Vice President for Community and External Affairs, The University of Chicago Medical Center
wow could this have anything to do with her and her husband in regards to the work they've done to bring more more awareness and trying to get funding/donations for affordable medications for those suffering in the AIDS crisis in Africa? nah...i'm sure it must be because the Obamas are in cahoots with Dr. Evil to take over and rule the world...afterall it is The Chicago Council on GLOBAL Affairs....haha, your paranoia is silly.
once again show some proof that Obama is a member. just because the CFR website gives a description of all the Presidental candidates and where they stand on a few issues doesn't make that candidate a member.
yes he did vote for S.970 which basically called for sanctions back in March when nearly everyone was of the belief Iran was seeking nuclear weapon capabilites. it said: The United States should use all political, economic, and diplomatic tools at its disposal to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the President the authority to use military force against Iran.
he did NOT vote for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to combat, contain and stop Iran via "military instruments" in Iraq. not that I could find anything to say that it would stop at Iraq's border with Iran either. despite that, the point is that Obama did NOT vote for it
nothing like a tiny clip so that one has no idea what he said before or after or in what context. rather than relying on people with opposing views taking little soundbites out of context have you tried reading where he really stands on the issues by reading his website?
Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats.
The disturbing thing is Obama didn't just attend the AIPAC convention. He gave a speech at it. Big difference.
he gave a speech for the a local (Chicago) AIPAC meeting. that hardly makes it "the AIPAC convention" Big difference. anyone running for President in this country knows that they have to kiss AIPAC ass (not saying that's it's right) if they want even the slightest chance at making a run for the white house. one wonders what any of these candidates would say if there was a huge American Palestinian lobby in this country...or even a small American-Palestinian lobby for that matter
I won't tell Ron Paul that you find a 3 year old article from a reporter for the Socialist Worker as "interesting." afterall if hell froze over and he becomes president of the US and he knew that you did he keep your foreign Canadian ass from ever setting foot in the US ever again. or does he just want to keep all of those dirty, ebil Mexicans from ever setting foot in the US ever again?
now see? i can spout lies and crap and take things out of context on the candidate that you'd like to see as President of a country where you couldn't vote for him if you wanted to. but I don't cause i don't care what guys you have a hard-on for
Hey, what happened to the "this guy who pays to have his book-published and releases poorly-edited and inaccurate material on youtube is the saviour of truth" argument? I thought you challenged me to respond to that. I took time out to do that - now where's YOUR response?
The headshrinkers
They want everything
My Uncle Bill
My belisha beacon
Hey, what happened to the "this guy who pays to have his book-published and releases poorly-edited and inaccurate material on youtube is the saviour of truth" argument? I thought you challenged me to respond to that. I took time out to do that - now where's YOUR response?
It's pretty much in my subsequent responses. Obama's AIPAC speech encompasses your entire viewpoint. You really didn't explain much for me as the reality of the Barack situation. If you really want to get it clarified in depth I suggest you sign up at his website
I think you'll find it yourself at a disadvantage in trying to explain it all away there.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
yes he did vote for S.970 which basically called for sanctions back in March when nearly everyone was of the belief Iran was seeking nuclear weapon capabilites. it said: The United States should use all political, economic, and diplomatic tools at its disposal to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the President the authority to use military force against Iran.
he did NOT vote for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to combat, contain and stop Iran via "military instruments" in Iraq. not that I could find anything to say that it would stop at Iraq's border with Iran either. despite that, the point is that Obama did NOT vote for it
nothing like a tiny clip so that one has no idea what he said before or after or in what context. rather than relying on people with opposing views taking little soundbites out of context have you tried reading where he really stands on the issues by reading his website?
Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats.
he gave a speech for the a local (Chicago) AIPAC meeting. that hardly makes it "the AIPAC convention" Big difference. anyone running for President in this country knows that they have to kiss AIPAC ass (not saying that's it's right) if they want even the slightest chance at making a run for the white house. one wonders what any of these candidates would say if there was a huge American Palestinian lobby in this country...or even a small American-Palestinian lobby for that matter
I won't tell Ron Paul that you find a 3 year old article from a reporter for the Socialist Worker as "interesting." afterall if hell froze over and he becomes president of the US and he knew that you did he keep your foreign Canadian ass from ever setting foot in the US ever again. or does he just want to keep all of those dirty, ebil Mexicans from ever setting foot in the US ever again?
now see? i can spout lies and crap and take things out of context on the candidate that you'd like to see as President of a country where you couldn't vote for him if you wanted to. but I don't cause i don't care what guys you have a hard-on for
Obama is in bed with institution. He will do what he's told when he is told. Nothing will change. End of story.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Obama is in bed with institution. He will do what he's told when he is told. Nothing will change. End of story.
according to you. just because you are used to hearing about Dubya and how Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz and corporate interests pull his puppet strings doesn't mean that every candidate (especially Obama) will follow suit
I'm not silly enough to think that the changes will come about immediately of Obama taking office, though I for one hold out hope that thing WILL change.
you really need to seek help. because all of your negativity can't be doing you any good, or any good for anyone close to you either.
Obama is in bed with institution. He will do what he's told when he is told. Nothing will change. End of story.
Maybe he needs to act like he's following institution to get into power? Have you ever thought of that??? Play the game to get elected.. If you don't play the game, you don't get elected. Simple as that.
Lets face it, he's doing what he's doing to get elected. Can't you have any hope things will work out once he's in office? It's the only way for change. Radical people do not get elected.
We'll either have Obama or Hickabee.. you decide which is better.
according to you. just because you are used to hearing about Dubya and how Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz and corporate interests pull his puppet strings doesn't mean that every candidate (especially Obama) will follow suit
I'm not silly enough to think that the changes will come about immediately of Obama taking office, though I for one hold out hope that thing WILL change.
you really need to seek help. because all of your negativity can't be doing you any good, or any good for anyone close to you either.
Agreed... if someone cant see that Obama would be something positive for our country I feel sorry for that person... of course there are negatives, when has their ever been a perfect politician?
I just think we have to go with the person that will spark a "change" (who is tired of that word so far?) for our country, Obama is the more likely candidate to me for change. AND it now seems he may be very electable.
Why must you cloud this fact with the dirty side of politics we all now exists no matter who is President?
the media said obama had a double digit lead on monday.....
did hillary get the "sympathy vote" for crying on monday???
are people flat out lying to the assfucks who take the polls???
did hillarys people go out monday and do their job??? getting the ladies to vote...........
did the media fuck obama by announcing his so called double digit lead .......and therefore people who would have voted for obama just stayed home instead of actually voting...... figuring he couldnt lose????
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Comments
Controversy actually sells quite well, you know. Either way, it still doesn't make him credible. YOU were the one who used his book as proof of reliability, all I did was say any bugger could've done it, which is true.
What?
No, i just want you to give me a reason for searching around looking for responses and counterarguments. I've argued with people like you before, and typically even if i find answers to the things in the video the next step is another video by someone different, who i then have to disprove. Asking for some outright positions to study is NOT trying to remain in the dark, but answering every video on youtube is something i'm not prepared to waste time doing, so stop getting dramatic.
No fact speaks for itself, you're using meaningless terms again. You're expecting me to believe something just because both you and someone on youtube said it. Do you understand why i can't work on that principle?
Resorting to arrogance instead of giving me something concrete to work on and discuss is not helping your case. I'm still willing to discuss things. Just because YOU hold this man in high regard doesn't mean I should.
They want everything
My Uncle Bill
My belisha beacon
Remember that i don't have to accept the narrative of the video as well as fact checking outright. Facts can be manipulated, and i'll explain where i think that's happening if i encounter it.
I'll post the rest of it here in this post when i'm done, but i'm putting this here first because it'll take a while. This way you know my intentions and can be ready to debate.
Note that i'm not agreeing to take this guy (or similar others) as an accredited source - from here on in i'll need more substantive information.
Fair enough?
Point one
Basic, easily fact-checked error: 10-12 seconds in, he states both Paul and Obama voted against the Iraq war. Obama wasn't a Senator when the Iraq war was authorised, he couldn't have voted against it.
sub-point one
Here's where i need sources: 20-22 seconds in, he mentions Obama supporting a resolution that supported the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. I checked his voting record on foreign aid and policy here http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=32&go.x=13&go.y=9 and found nothing relating to it. I checked his full voting record at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/page6/ at the time the conflict was escalating and occuring, and didn't see anything.
Does he mean he merely spoke out for it? To what extent and when? What does "support" mean? You see why i asked for sources now? I'm not saying he did or he didn't, but it's a part of his argument which needs to be sourced.
point two
Between 30-50 seconds i think.
The mention of AIPAC seems to be implying Obama's support for the killing of Lebanese we just saw in pictures. It's not explicitly stated, but it's a persuasive tactic not backed up by any actual argument that i've seen.
Going to speak at a conference there is different to being on their side 100%. Supporting the statehood or Israel is different to condoning all the actions they have taken.
I'll need a source for the money he takes from the AIPAC group. Again, not saying if it's right or wrong, but it needs sourcing. If nothing else, assuming he did take money, the size of the donation is critical to the point.
He then says Obama is "completely pro-Israel" because of this - another unproven statement, since one can be pro-Israel to an extent without loving everything they do - and goes again with the "thus obama supports bulldozing of homes and civilians" line, which is a bullshit tactic, in the same way that someone who supports the US doesn't necessarily support the killing of Iraqi civilians.
Images of bulldozed homes, appeal to emotion while trying to somehow implicate Obama supports this behaviour.
"Apartheid" claim is quite tenuous. Forgive the wiki link, but it's a well-sourced article at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid
This is in no way supporting the actions of israel, you understand. It's outright wrong about white/black meaning jew/palestinian - Arabs with Israeli citizenship retain the same rights as Jews with citizenship. The difficulties in getting citizenship are definitely worth discussing, but it's another issue for another day. This is meant to be about Obama.
Lots of news reporting
Point three
somwhere between 1:30 and 2:30, i didn't jot it down
"Considered missile strikes on Iran and Pakistan" line. Tries to say it's equivalent to Bush, which is wrong. Here's a thought experiment example:
Two people are being asked what it'd take to get them so angry they'd try to fight a man in a bar. One man says "If he looked at me funnily", the other says "If he drew a knife and started making noises about attacking". Are both sides the same? I'm not saying the specific positions are equivalent to Bush and Obama, but what he's saying is "If you would ever attack anyone for any reason, you're the same as someone who'd attack for bad reasons". Poor, inherently flawed logic from the guy.
Point four - a biggie
about 2:30-2:50
Outright wrong when saying Obama voted for a bill categorising the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organisation. That bill was the Kyl-Lieberman bill, which can be seen here to show Obama as not being present for the vote: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13015.html
Not only that, but in one of the Democratic debates i saw, Obama directly criticised Clinton for voting for it. Possibly from November, i forget the exact one, maybe the youtube debate? He specifically stated by declaring them as such she could be giving Bush carte blanche to invade. Google search for "obama clinton iranian guard criticism" or some variant and you should get some results. As i recall, he wasn't able to get to the vote because he got the notification from Harry Reid on short notice and was away campaigning somewhere or other. Either way, he's spoken out against it, so there'd be no real reason for him to vote for it if he had been able to make it.
This guy isn't quite the savant he was made out to be, to be honest. Basic errors that could be corrected within a few minutes, lots of emotional appeals and assumptions, nothing more than a slightly above average Paul supporter thus far.
Doesn't seem to be quite as accurate now, does it? How funny are these basic errors that you presented as fact? Maybe you need to start vetting your sources a little more.
sub-point two
3:20-3:45
Cutting off Israel could easily cause some factions of the Arab world to begin hostilities. If Israel responds with the same disproportionate force it usually uses, it could get messy and they wouldn't even be listening to us. It's a debatable point to be sure, but he's not taking into account effects that cutting israel off may have on the region's stability. Ending the Iraq war point is fine though. This particular "fact" most certainly is under dispute.
sub-point three
4:00-6:00 or so
The gold standard is not seen as a solution to any current economists other than those who still follow von Mises and his lot. To be perfectly frank, this guy doesn't strike me as having particularly in-depth knowledge of economics. If you're saying that the gold standard is an indisputably good system and that there's no debate to be had about it, then you're nuts. Whether you support it or not, you have to know that it's disputable. Not only that, but there's been very little about Obama for quite a while.
point five
6:30ish
Same unsourced claims about Obama taking money (the amount and why is utterly relevant) from AIPAC. The spying charges are serious but aren't exactly sinister - two people from AIPAC got told about the US policy on Iran. I understand the severity of leaking national defence secrets but it's not as though they were wiretapping american people or some such, they were talking directly to an officer of the US. That's a VERY misleading argument, as it makes the Israelis seem hostile to the US. Unethical and dangerous as that breach of security may be, it's not quite what people imagine when "spying" is mentioned.
Palestinian footage from here on out, hard-hitting stuff but seems again like a smear to attach Obama's name to this as though he is partially responsible.
There, those are my thoughts. It may seem disorganised (i did have a shower in the middle somewhere), and some points are weaker than others, but i don't think your claim that it was all indisputable truth is even close to reality.
They want everything
My Uncle Bill
My belisha beacon
Allow me to use an analogy. Personally, i am a pacifist. Sincerely. Don't get me wrong, i'm from a tough neighborhood. i CAN fight. i choose not to. i don't like to. Not because of fear, but because of personal ethics. i am much more inclined to be a diplomat and that is always my first choice. it will take ALOT to get me to whoop somebody's ass. But i am not so naive as to "take that option off the table". Mess with my wife and kids, for example, and you're in trouble. My wife and kids know that i am not a hot head looking for a fight and will always seek to forgo a fight in favor of a diplomatic solution. i have three sons i am trying to pass these ethics onto. My wife and kids can also rest assured, however, that i will not punk out on them if it becomes necessary. i will, in fact, protect them. That doesn't make me a violent man or a "war monger". Get it?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Yes, but you would not go around with those threats to everyone, would you? "Hey, I'll fuck you up, I dont want to, but I will". it's just gonna get people angry, so by obama even suggesting these things it will only anger the other sides. I think he should avoid all this tough talk. simply work on why people are so pissed off at america. things he avoids doing.
Everyone knows america is sorta tough, no need to say it.
Philly- 2005, 2013, 2016, 2024
Camden 2000, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2022, 2023
Philly Spectrum 2009 x4 - We closed that MFER Down Proper
Baltimore- 2024
DC- 2006, 2008
New York- 2008, 2010
Boston - Fenway 2016 (night 2) , 2024 (night1)
East Rutherford, New Jersey- 2006
Chicago - Lollapalooza 2007
Seattle- Gorge 2005
EV Solo- DC x2, Baltimore x2 , Newark NJ x2, Tower Theater x2
- Given To Fly
And you're not leaving here without me, I don't wanna be without
My best... friend. Wake up, to see you could have it all
i don't think anything he said was threatening. He didn't really "suggest" anything. Just common sense. Obama, i believe is EXACTLY the kind of diplomat we need to improve our standing and rapport with the rest of the world.
Keep telling yourself that.
i wouldn't bet the rent money on it though if i were you.
Do you have specific examples that will lead me to believe he is exactly the kind of diplomat we need? He has a pro israel stance to start off with. What possible reason can he have for support of a state like that? apartheid israel.
don't underestimate the American racist......
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security
where does Obama say that he's favors one over the other when he says that he wants to work toward a two state solution?
not that i don't think that the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians is anything short of horrendous. however i haven't seen anything where Obama has said that he favors it or anything to that effect
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
That above obama insert is what Bush even has been saying, you know, "two states" "peace and security". I mean it sounds all nice I guess.
But if you start to refer to his own words. Like "israel our strongest ally in the mid east" "Our friend". I mean is he stupid? Israel is far from an ally.
Ok besides that. You wont find him even coming that close to a nice smile towards the palestinians. I would say "Israel needs to stop building settlements, stop the invasions into gaza and help the suffering of the palestinians, peace in the middle east, the end of palestinians fighting towards israel can only happen when israel learns to respect the people it lives next to, not continue to Push them into the waters."
But I guess he doesnt feel that way and he would not want to upset his close friends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ3qrqZZNT0
Only one candidate talks about going against all of the above issues, the rest (except Kucinich and Gravel) are just playing along...stringing you all along.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
where and in what context did he say those things? link please
what i posted are HIS WORDS from his website http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
sure Bush has said that he'd like to see a two state solution. however what the hell diplomatic measures has he undertaken to try to bring anything like that about? at least ole Bubba gave a go at it
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the
Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected
priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war
in Afghanistan. And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the
greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.
Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His
words contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragic
history.
Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President
Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his
country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as
the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to
Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the
pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington
and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60
years, it is time to deny the deniers.
In the 21^st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United
Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But
that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has
the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.
The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to
have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we
should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained
and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our
primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.
Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a
new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia
and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest
that could fuel greater instability in the region—that’s not just bad
for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more
dangerous and unpredictable place. Other nations would feel great pressure
to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran’s backing
would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear
umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran
could spread this technology around the world.
To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead
tough-minded diplomacy.
This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we
conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in
clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would
include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more
determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing
the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran’s major
trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States
who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean
unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure
on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation
of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused
approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own
alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.
We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize
common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran. We should stress to the
Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by
failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran
into Gaza.
The United States’ leverage is strengthened when we have many nations
with us. It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have a
profound impact on Iran’s economy. Iran is highly dependent on imports
and foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment where
our allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in the
world’s best interests, could help bring Iran to the table.
We have no quarrel with the Iranian people. They know that President
Ahamadinejad is reckless, irresponsible, and inattentive to their
day-to-day needs which is why they sent him a rebuke at the ballot box
this fall. And we hope more of them will speak out. There is great hope
in their ability to see his hatred for what it is: hatred and a threat to
peace in the region.
At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to
our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military
assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense
programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and
repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. And
when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right
to defend itself. Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By using
Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields,
Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict,
and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there. That’s why
we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701,
which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution
which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of
weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in
the region, must end.
These are great challenges that we face. And in moments like
these, true allies do not walk away. For six years, the administration has
missed opportunities to increase the United States’ influence in the
region and help Israel achieve the peace she wants and the security she
needs. The time has come for us to seize those opportunities."
Sounds like Barak is tits deep for more war, military assistance, and involvement in the middle east to me. If you notice he seems to dodge any question on pulling the troops out of Iraq (correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing is off the table militarily for this guy. Scratch the surface and he's isn't anti-war anything, quite the opposite in fact.
He'll do exactly as he's told, and when, and allocate more troops, and support additional military intervention all the way.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
nevertheless, the fact that he says these types of things, does it not worry you at all?
:rolleyes:
the dude in that youtube didn't even bother to check the site (nndb) that he was telling people to check out for themselves to see what organizations the candidates belong to. because if he had he would see that neither Barack or Michelle Obama have anything at all to do with the CFR or AIPAC.
it's one thing not to like a candidate or not agree with what they have to say but to make up shit just in order to try to make them look bad is just simply assinine
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
That's one of the more hilarious things I've heard in a while. Obama is a staunch AIPAC supporter, and it's widely known he's a member of the CFR.
Regardless of who owns that site, and how it's been kept since that video was made. It matters little how it chooses to represent, edit, delete, etc.. people in this regard.
scroll down for Michelle:
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/chicago_council_board_directors.php
Barack:
http://www.cfr.org/bios/11603/barack_obama.html
I could dig up a ton of AIPAC links...but it's pointless for me to do so. I already know about it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Gee did I really vote on that? hmm...quickly grabs drink...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoBKetz_YUg
Phasing down the troops?!...Sir no sir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irh_aMf2tRY
Those not aware of AIPAC is might want to peruse this:
(Obama is in the middle of it shaking hands with the lobby and speaking to them @ 26:23 and 32:47)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878&hl=en
The disturbing thing is Obama didn't just attend the AIPAC convention. He gave a speech at it. Big difference.
another interesting article
http://www.counterpunch.org/smith10132004.html
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Michelle Obama
Vice President for Community and External Affairs, The University of Chicago Medical Center
wow could this have anything to do with her and her husband in regards to the work they've done to bring more more awareness and trying to get funding/donations for affordable medications for those suffering in the AIDS crisis in Africa? nah...i'm sure it must be because the Obamas are in cahoots with Dr. Evil to take over and rule the world...afterall it is The Chicago Council on GLOBAL Affairs....haha, your paranoia is silly.
using your logic then it must be also be widely known that Ron Paul is a member of the CFR http://www.cfr.org/bios/13303/ron_paul.html#7 Oh Nos!!!
once again show some proof that Obama is a member. just because the CFR website gives a description of all the Presidental candidates and where they stand on a few issues doesn't make that candidate a member.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
yes he did vote for S.970 which basically called for sanctions back in March when nearly everyone was of the belief Iran was seeking nuclear weapon capabilites. it said: The United States should use all political, economic, and diplomatic tools at its disposal to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the President the authority to use military force against Iran.
he did NOT vote for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to combat, contain and stop Iran via "military instruments" in Iraq. not that I could find anything to say that it would stop at Iraq's border with Iran either. despite that, the point is that Obama did NOT vote for it
nothing like a tiny clip so that one has no idea what he said before or after or in what context. rather than relying on people with opposing views taking little soundbites out of context have you tried reading where he really stands on the issues by reading his website?
Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats.
he gave a speech for the a local (Chicago) AIPAC meeting. that hardly makes it "the AIPAC convention" Big difference. anyone running for President in this country knows that they have to kiss AIPAC ass (not saying that's it's right) if they want even the slightest chance at making a run for the white house. one wonders what any of these candidates would say if there was a huge American Palestinian lobby in this country...or even a small American-Palestinian lobby for that matter
I won't tell Ron Paul that you find a 3 year old article from a reporter for the Socialist Worker as "interesting." afterall if hell froze over and he becomes president of the US and he knew that you did he keep your foreign Canadian ass from ever setting foot in the US ever again. or does he just want to keep all of those dirty, ebil Mexicans from ever setting foot in the US ever again?
now see? i can spout lies and crap and take things out of context on the candidate that you'd like to see as President of a country where you couldn't vote for him if you wanted to. but I don't cause i don't care what guys you have a hard-on for
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Hey, what happened to the "this guy who pays to have his book-published and releases poorly-edited and inaccurate material on youtube is the saviour of truth" argument? I thought you challenged me to respond to that. I took time out to do that - now where's YOUR response?
They want everything
My Uncle Bill
My belisha beacon
It's pretty much in my subsequent responses. Obama's AIPAC speech encompasses your entire viewpoint. You really didn't explain much for me as the reality of the Barack situation. If you really want to get it clarified in depth I suggest you sign up at his website
I think you'll find it yourself at a disadvantage in trying to explain it all away there.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Obama is in bed with institution. He will do what he's told when he is told. Nothing will change. End of story.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
according to you. just because you are used to hearing about Dubya and how Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz and corporate interests pull his puppet strings doesn't mean that every candidate (especially Obama) will follow suit
I'm not silly enough to think that the changes will come about immediately of Obama taking office, though I for one hold out hope that thing WILL change.
you really need to seek help. because all of your negativity can't be doing you any good, or any good for anyone close to you either.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Lets face it, he's doing what he's doing to get elected. Can't you have any hope things will work out once he's in office? It's the only way for change. Radical people do not get elected.
We'll either have Obama or Hickabee.. you decide which is better.
Agreed... if someone cant see that Obama would be something positive for our country I feel sorry for that person... of course there are negatives, when has their ever been a perfect politician?
I just think we have to go with the person that will spark a "change" (who is tired of that word so far?) for our country, Obama is the more likely candidate to me for change. AND it now seems he may be very electable.
Why must you cloud this fact with the dirty side of politics we all now exists no matter who is President?
the media said obama had a double digit lead on monday.....
did hillary get the "sympathy vote" for crying on monday???
are people flat out lying to the assfucks who take the polls???
did hillarys people go out monday and do their job??? getting the ladies to vote...........
did the media fuck obama by announcing his so called double digit lead .......and therefore people who would have voted for obama just stayed home instead of actually voting...... figuring he couldnt lose????
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....