Down the middle?

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I don't pick sides, because there is no such thing in politics....especially US politics.

I was 100% for Kucinich, then realized he really didn't have much of a chance after the UFO story hit. Then I favored Gravel, but realized he was too out there, and again does not stand a chance. Then I clearly realized Ron Paul is the next best people's choice. Party affiliation is an illusion. The message and the integrity of person giving it is paramount above all else.

We have yet to see how it unfolds, worst case scenario is it coming down to Obama and Hillary, because Obama, although he talks a good game, does not have enough smarts on his own to really be truthful to what he is saying. He's been to the Aipac rallies, waving the Pom Poms shaking the hands that feed him like a good lap dog. He's in bed with the institution, and his supporters either don't see it or care either way. He's similar to shit with perfume sprayed on it. Hillary is Bush with ovaries...she'll do nothing except carry on the Bush torch.

The US is in more of a predicament then it's citizens realize, and everyone is far too casual about it. No fire...no guts. Hillary will get elected, it's all going to go down with a whimper, then years of complaining after the fact.

:rolleyes:

you don't pick sides when it comes to US politics? then what's with the dozens upon dozens of threads/posts that you've made supporting Ron Paul? or is it just that being a Canadian you can't actually pick sides?

also, you need to realize that just because you don't like Obama that doesn't give you the right to make up stuff about him or about the people that may support him. so take off your tin-foil hat and maybe you'll be able to get a glmpse at reality




to the OP, there's nothing wrong with going with the candidate that most closely represents your views....no matter their party.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Maybe you didn't pay attention when I said who I supported and in what order. It was truthful regardless of your interpretation.

Obama @ Aipac rallies smiles and handshakes, present and giving pro Zionist speeches. That's enough for me. Should be for you as well if you understand how things really work.

If you don't know what I know, you can't effectively criticize me. Knowledge is power.

You can try though.

I suggest you take a good strong look at Obama and Aipac and get back to me.



It should take you a few days of research.

edit: and you should drop the being Canadian, tinfoil hat thing, it only makes your arguments essentially useless, and as though like you're some kind of jlew wannabe/follower, and that's pretty sad. Herd mentality....try some originality.

maybe because in the 100's of threads and posts that you have made to support Ron Paul you never mentioned that you supported Kucinich or Gravel (or if you did no one bothers to read your going on and on about your hard-on for Ron Paul)



nearly all politcians address aipac meetings. the speech that Obama made was NOT pro-zionist. it's funny how when posted that speech you cut out this part: We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security. Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in working to make that goal a reality.

and from his website:
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

oh i do know that what you think you know is a lot of bullcrap so i can effectivly critisize you. you just seem to be of the mistaken impression that you know more than others.

I read the Obama speech to that Aipac meeting long ago. it didn't take days for anyone to do that.

prism wrote:

maybe because in the 100's of threads and posts that you have made to support Ron Paul you never mentioned that you supported Kucinich or Gravel (or if you did no one bothers to read your going on and on about your hard-on for Ron Paul)



nearly all politcians address aipac meetings. the speech that Obama made was NOT pro-zionist. it's funny how when posted that speech you cut out this part: We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security. Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in working to make that goal a reality.

and from his website:
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

oh i do know that what you think you know is a lot of bullcrap so i can effectivly critisize you. you just seem to be of the mistaken impression that you know more than others.

I read the Obama speech to that Aipac meeting long ago. it didn't take days for anyone to do that.

Kucinich or Gravel never got the media momentum or support RP has, and I've posted Gravel vids, and Kucinich stuff, before Paul, it's just that they have no legs and the numbers in fact support it. Common sense perception is required here.

Obama has an undying love for Israel. Read between the lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odNYQd4XK20

Here's some nice Zionist Obama quotes

"That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. "That will always be my starting point."

And calling for sustained military support to Israel, Obama said: "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."

So he's either hes dead stupid, or the full story is not being told here.

which is it?

Barack is pro Israel, and thinks Iran is a very serious terrorist problem.

Do the math. He's essentially saying the US should be keeping the pressure and intervention going in the region.

In this vid the very beginning, and the very end are the best parts. (Especially the end after listening to Obama's stance on Iran). There it is right there. That's Barack, that's what you're going to get n a nutshell. All options are on the table including nuclear war - Obama
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=744030378520608209&q=obama+aipac&total=31&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

Shows how far from reality we have all been led astray.

If he isn't declaring himself outright anti, then you can bet your ass he's pro.

And he's saying yes to pro Israel, yes pro military, yes pro military defense plans, yes pro all options are on the table. That means nuclear war is an option for him! That's fucking crazy talk....

Where's the guesswork here????

The guy is a puppet, when push comes to shove he folds under pressure and obeys the military plan/route.

If RP gave a pro zionist speech at an AIPAC rally talking seriously about nuclear war as a viable option, I'd dump him like piece of shit faster than yesterday.

I mean ...seriously....

jlew24asu wrote:

why is he pro zionist for supporting Israel? and I'm glad he is pro defense. makes no sense for me (you know, as an American) to support someone who's not. and with Iran I definitely want someone who has a pair of balls. Iran does support terrorism and all options should be on the table. easy with your nuclear war propaganda. your a joke. and your wet dream of wishing you were american is getting old. I think I am not leaning towards voting for Obama.

and prism is right. you never once said you supported kookynich or gravel. and have only leaned one way this entire process.

If that's your take on the situation go for it vote for him you'll get it. Better yet vote Hillary you'll get even bigger balls, hers plus Bills. 2 for 1.

It just amazes me that Obama says nuclear war is on the table as an option against Iran and people are like..oh yeah man...he's so like...anti war.

The guy condones the use of pre-emptive nuclear strikes, and people are like...oh well .. nuke away...not even raising an eyebrow.

You want to know the joke?...that's the joke. You're welcome to it. pony up to the ballot box.

I wouldn't trade my citizenship for anything southern anytime soon. I go overseas first.

jlew24asu wrote:

pre-empitve nuclear strikes? you have officially lost your mind.

You don't follow the news at very well it seems. I can't even believe you don't know that, yet accuse me in a derogatory manner. That's just ridiculous.

Interesting how I've only ever promoted candidates that might actually serve to move your country into a more peaceful era, and all I get from you is endless hatred, and resentment.

Pretty interesting how that is eh? Pretty telling as well.

If you want to continually place yourself under a microscope and hang a flashing sign over your head with an arrow, that's your prerogative.

Be my guest, you have to live in it more than I do.

I've set forward why I like the candidates I have promoted and have always said favorable things about (Gravel, Kucinich, and Paul)

If that pisses you off, hey....good luck to you....you're your own worst enemy and you haven't a clue why. Keep driving home that American stereo type, you seem to do it like no other.

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20080122081822696

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=161775

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

I could post dozens more mainstream links.. It's been a while now...

Drowned Out wrote:

f man...the first sentence would have got the point across. You two might avoid future bouts of carpal tunnel if you ease up on the personal shite.




Bullshit posturing.

I post legitimate information. Instead of refuting it with proof, or some kind of insight, it goes straight to ongoing personal attack, so I educate the guy again, and again, and again.

Same situation over and over.

What exactly is bullshit posturing? I'm posting factual articles, and information which is all verifiable.

Drowned Out wrote:

oh c'mon man....reread your posts in this thread (hell, this post - you didn't have to add the "so I educate the guy again and again" part). I dont' know who starts it more...but you guys both do it

The bullshit posturing is these five countries saying they want nukes on the table (not any of what you're saying...but I do think you're overreacting to this a bit, scary as it is). They're just flexing their muscles. Who would be crazy enough to nuke a country that had terrorists with WMD? Even without retaliation, the world would fall apart at the seams if ANYONE nuked ANYONE. They know this...MAD is alive and well....maybe not from all out nuclear war/winter...but it would completely destabillize every aspect of the world as we know it.
This manifesto sounds on par with all the other changes made to broaden the definition of 'enemy'. Anything that does this on a domestic or personal level is worth fighting...but with nukes? Can you think of a single situation where it would be viable? It would be suicide...

My original point was. Obama said he supported" all military option are on the table", and this is interpreted to include nukes especially as there have been grumblings about using them dating back to 2005. All options on the table is Bush speak.

If someone says they are an antiwar candidate and they are saying they're not against using nuclear force something is not jiving. I would think an antiwar candidate would outright proclaim he was definitely against using nuclear force as an option.

Don't you think? All military options are on the table, but I'm against using them? Then why say they're on the table in the first place? It sends the wrong message altogether.

I shine a flashlight on situations when it's due. call it posturing...debating....proving a point... however you want to see it.