Obama will be the next president..

MrBrian

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.

prism

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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

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.

prism

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

a couple more tidbits on Barack.

Gee did I really vote on that? hmm...quickly grabs drink...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoBKetz_YUg

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

Phasing down the troops?!...Sir no sir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irh_aMf2tRY

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.

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.

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

another interesting article
http://www.counterpunch.org/smith10132004.html

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

Mental Block

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

many posts

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?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Mental Block wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

prism wrote:

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.

prism

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

LikeAnOcean

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

MasterFramer

prism wrote:

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?

SPEEDY MCCREADY

so what happened last night???

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????

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

so what happened last night???

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????

all of the above. polls are funny

ledvedderman

Here's what I take were the deciding factors:

Women- Between Edwards and Obama hammering Hillary at the debate on Saturday, the whole "iron my clothes" thing (which I think was staged), and the "crying"...it got the women vote out.

Press- I never believed the 10 point lead everyone was claiming. Would I believe somewhere between 5-8? Yes. Not 10-12 though. I think the press upset the people of NH and they voted to keep this primary moving. If Obama had won by that much it would really have been considered over in the press.

John McCain- Got many independents to turn out for him that otherwise would have gone for Obama. The Maverick is loved in NH and that hurt Obama.

The race is on though. Obama landed a very key endorsement of the culinary union in Nevada, SC will be a tight race and both candidates will be courting the black vote that makes up 50% of the states Dems. Obama needs the independents to turn out for him, which they might since I don't see McCain catching Huckabee down there.

Dark Grin

Obama still has an excellent chance, but it sounds like his opponents have succeeded in making many people in the forum more cynical. That's unfortunate. He's a good man that would make an excellent president.

I was surprised to see so many seemingly well-informed people on here get the possible VP selections so wrong. VPs are selected to offset weaknesses. Obama's is experience. So is Edwards'. They will not be on the same ticket together. Al Gore has already nixed the idea of playing second-fiddle again, although that ticket would be devastating for the Republicans. Obama would also have difficulty making a Hillary selection. She probably wouldn't accept, and if she did it would be a contentious and distracting relationship. I think the smart money is on somebody like Joe Biden or Bill Richardson (although two-minorities would be difficult). Bloomberg is not out of the question, either.

Obama and Ron Paul disagree on most issues. Pay attention, people.

g under p

Dinosaurs will walk this earth again before THIS country elects a black person as President. It ain't happening people, less than 200 years ago they were ordered to fetch water and everything for no pay.

I know Obama walks and preaches down the middle of the road to garner more votes. However, even if every minority group voted for he still would come up short and it still matters not whether he's a donkey or an elephant.

Peace

Pacomc79

Dark Grin wrote:

Obama still has an excellent chance, but it sounds like his opponents have succeeded in making many people in the forum more cynical. That's unfortunate. He's a good man that would make an excellent president.

I was surprised to see so many seemingly well-informed people on here get the possible VP selections so wrong. VPs are selected to offset weaknesses. Obama's is experience. So is Edwards'. They will not be on the same ticket together. Al Gore has already nixed the idea of playing second-fiddle again, although that ticket would be devastating for the Republicans. Obama would also have difficulty making a Hillary selection. She probably wouldn't accept, and if she did it would be a contentious and distracting relationship. I think the smart money is on somebody like Joe Biden or Bill Richardson (although two-minorities would be difficult). Bloomberg is not out of the question, either.

Obama and Ron Paul disagree on most issues. Pay attention, people.

Respectful disagreement leads to critical thinking which leads to better more thought out decisions. I was being a little sarcastic anyway. Obviously that's not going to happen. Years of experience is nearly unnecessary and unwelcomed in my eye as it seems only to corrupt. The president has at the ready many advisors and plenty of experienced staff members to help guide the way at events and state dinners to help you learn the customs and people they might not know. Lack of experience could be actually refreshing because the back end deals and "scratching of backs" so to speak could be lessened.

I personally think Obama is the most engaging canidate in the Democratic party and he to me seems more reticent to listen to an opposing viewpoint which would lead to more and better working toegther. I don't know everything about the guy obviously but he dosen't come off to me as rude, arrogant or unwilling to work with people. The fact that he's mentioned pay go and a balanced budget are good signs he's not going to be a tremendous wasteful spender like Bush.

JamMastaE

never happen.

jlew24asu

after Obama cleans up tonight, it looks like he will be able to beat mccain. I cant wait for higher taxes...congrats obama, looks like you got this race.

cornnifer

jlew24asu wrote:

after Obama cleans up tonight, it looks like he will be able to beat mccain. I cant wait for higher taxes...congrats obama, looks like you got this race.

Whereas i believe he will clean up tonight and then again in Wisconsin, and whereas i believe he will hold his own and perhaps even win in Texas and Ohio, and whereas i believe he should win the nomination, and whereas i believe he is the only one capable of beating McCain, I am not so sure he WILL win the nomination. Its going to be ugly. The nomination may likely be won by cunton, either in a smoke filled room or in the courts over delegates from staes like Michigan where hers was the only name on the ballot. The democratic nomination is still likely to go to a dirty, underhanded, insincere, political opprotunist, devisive, polarizing bitch, and McCain will subsequently wipe up the floor with her. Sad.

stupidcorporatewhore

g under p wrote:

Dinosaurs will walk this earth again before THIS country elects a black person as President.

I'm sure you didn't mean this to come off sounding pessimistic, shortsighted and racist

but it does.

If you think the world will never change, it never will.

actually, you are as much a part of the problem as people who don't want the world to change.

Im still here

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

I'm sure you didn't mean this to come off sounding pessimistic, shortsighted and racist

but it does.

If you think the world will never change, it never will.

actually, you are as much a part of the problem as people who don't want the world to change.

and what does your name say about you????

lmfao