Hey, Obama Bashers

12357

Comments

  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    raszputini wrote:

    Michelle Obama's thesis is largely based around how much she hated white people, however, so I guess we coul draw a parallel.

    LOFL! No it isn't! You listen to Hannity to much which destroys your credibility. Show me, in print, from her thesis, where it says "i hate white people. i will hate white people for the rest of my life", and i'll give you a point. Heck, show me in her thesis where it even implies a hatred of white people and i'll give you half of a point.

    And since you would, theoretically be comparing the candidate's spouse to the candidate himself, you couldn't draw a parallel any damn way.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    No you shouldn't just vote for obama. Vote for who you like.
    Debate his policies all you like. Just forget about the cereal boxes and polls designed to entice people into flame wars. Yes? No? Sound like a plan?
    whatever. these complaints are pointless, though I'm starting to feel like that's the case with virtually ALL complaints on the message board these days...
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    _outlaw wrote:
    whatever. these complaints are pointless, though I'm starting to feel like that's the case with virtually ALL complaints on the message board these days...
    Meh. Forget the stupid boards ! I'm gonna make my own! With hookers! And blackjack!...

    ;)
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    Meh. Forget the stupid boards ! I'm gonna make my own! With hookers! And blackjack!...

    ;)
    i'm in.
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    _outlaw wrote:
    i'm in.
    Sweet!
  • raszputini
    raszputini Posts: 119
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    That was me. I did more than 'tried talking'. I gave you my honest and detailed view on the issue. You don't agree and that's quite ok.

    You're quite correct. Actually you were one of the more informed Obama supporters. You claimed you supported Obama because his Iraq policy gets us out sooner. I pointed out that his Iraq policy, minus the rhetoric, is nearly IDENTICAL to McCains, which is a controlled and gradual removal based on security needs. Obama says he'll get everyone out except those needed for security and anti-terror operations, which is why ALL of them are there now.

    You responded by claiming you still felt your chances were better with Obama, and that I could vote for who ever I like, which are the stock responses all Obama supporters give when realize they've been "had".

    I believe much of what I said here applies to you as much as most, which is you support your candidate based around a flawed perception of what his policies are. You DO get credit for basing them around policies at least, which is more than I can say for most. Unfortunately it is based around what Obama PRETENDS like his policy is - "16 MONTHS! 16 MONTHS!", rather than what it REALLY is "I feel like we can have all troops out of Iraq within 16 months from taking office, leaving only those needed for security and to continue anti-terrorism operations."

    Again.....maybe everyone has missed this.

    **All of the troops that are there NOW are there for security and anti-terror operations**

    Meaning.....(ding - ding)

    The troops stay as long as they are needed regardless of who wins the election. To believe otherwise is just ignoring what your candidate has said when pressed about his "deadline".
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    raszputini wrote:
    I'd LOVE to. Let me begin by saying that I'm not really excited about McCain, but WILL vote for him, because at this point he is the only candidate qualified to be President.



    He had ONE affair, while trying to get a divorce. Both parties claim that after McCain's war years, POW years, and her injury, that they had grown apart. The divorce was amicable, he and Carol are still friends, he pays her medical bills and helps support her. If she can forgive him, so can I. When I issued the "challenge", earlier I was talking about POLITICAL issues. I don't care who McCain screws.



    If you knew anything about this beyond the taglines, you wouldn't post it. If anything, McCain comes out as a stand-up ethical guy because of this scandal.. He bailed out as soon as things started being abnormal, and was very open about the entire incident, then blew the roof on it. He attended one meeting when the Senators tried to influence FHLBB, and then bailed out because he thought it was wrong. The other Senators actually called him a "pussy" because he would have no part in it. Three Senators were indicted, McCain was cleared of all wrong doing, and then became a huge and sometimes unpopular advocate of Ethics legislation.



    I'm glad he still had game. Again, I don't care unless laws were broken. There is no proof whatsoever of this, however, just speculation. Many think this was a Howard Dean smear special.



    This would, of course, be illegal. There have been no indictments. All parties deny any impropriety. The only thing he is accused of to begin with is that he used influence to try and get a "ruling" on an issue she was allegedly lobbying for - not that he tried to influence the decision itself, but just that he tried to get them TO DECIDE. Again, nothing of substance has been found.



    Pales in comparison to Reverend Wright. Falwell used to be much less of a hater.



    I indicated above why appropriations issues are relative to the situation, for either candidate. He denounced the Bush cuts in 2000, during which the economy was stable, but the budget was upsidedown, and denounced it for buedgetary reasons. In 2008, the cuts served to boost an economy where people were losing their homes. At that point, immediately economic relief trumped the budget. I agree with both of his positions. It's the same as choosing not to buy a new car in April, and then deciding a few years later that you're ready to buy one.




    This whole thing was badly taken out of context. In a hearing with Petraeus, McCain suggested that Iran is allowing Al Qaeda operatives to come over the border and train then return to Iraq for operations. Iran is shiite, Iraq is Sunni. That's the contradiction? I realize this has gotten a lot of press as a contradiction, but it really isn't. Here's the article (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/18/2008-03-18_john_mccain_in_shiitesunni_snafu_during_.html). Regardless of their respective religious beliefs, Iran has many reasons to try and subvert what is happening in Iraq. Lots of evidence, including your next "contradiction" suggest that Iran is doing so. The media has gotten behind Obama for the most part, so it isn't unusual for these kind of claims to be made. You can blindly believe them, as you obviously have. Or you can go back to the source and draw your own conclusions. It's listed above in case you'd like to form your own opinions and not regurgitate the opinions of others.



    This is really a carry-over of the previous one. The Mahdi Army is a shiite paramilitary group acting to detabilize Iraq -an example of a shiite group acting in an sunni country, which should somehow be a contradiction. In the same hearing with Petraeus, McCain brought up concern that Iran was acting in Iraq. Again, the media painted confusion where there was none. They keep saying it over and over, just like Barry says "16 months" over and over, and those of you that just pay attention to soundbytes think its truth.




    Again, at best this washes out with Reverend Wright. GOD DAMN AMERICA! Just like the youtube guys said. "I'm not responsible for what people I know say." I'm sure McCain as well as Obama both know assholes.


    and stated that he knew next to nothing about economics

    Obama has done virtually the same thing, which is why his economic policy was developed by Goolsbee and Liebman, two academics with no policymaking experience. Obama's only economic experience is he wrote a newsletter for an International Business firm.




    Cindy McCain wasn't given a pass by the media at all. That's probably where you got the really "grown-up" nickname for her. BTW, while all that happened, Cindy was organizing and primarily bankrolling medical missions to impoversihed and war-torn countries like Bangladesh, Iraq, and Micronesia. During that time period, she LED 55 humanitarian missions to places all over the globe to provide medical treatment for those in need. Maybe the media cut her a little slack for that. All Michelle Obama has done is complain about how shitty America is. It was cool enough that it allowed her entry into Harvard even though her SAT scores were too low.

    This was a pretty good attempt - at least it was issues-oriented. In order to REALLY discuss these types of issues, though, it would be better if, before you post, you do more than a cursory google search to find out things to talk about.

    To answer the final question though, my answer would be "It depends on when the issues came out". Early on, before everyone stopped using critical thinking techniques and using outdated methods like "logic" and "rationality" when they were evaluating Obama - the media probably would've destroyed him. Obama was smart enough to get in bed with major media outlets quickly though. Now, the media will ignore it and focus on Michelle's Vanity Fair intervew and who is the best dresser.

    nice work, Karl....

    the McCain camp should hire you as an apologist...rather at address, redirect...good use of Wright and Mrs. Obama...which of course doesn't address anything..

    again, nicely spun...

    by the way, where can I find a evidence supporting your assertion that McCain was called a "pussy" during the Keating Five...
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    Every presidential race is a popularity contest to a large degree. So by saying a lot of people will vote for Obama and not done any research is true. However, just as many are going to vote for Obama because they disagree with McCain (is that such a revelation?).
    McCain will have a tough time shaking the Bush fiascos... this is really a parallel to the 2000 election which in my opinion was more of a popularity contest with the masses of fundamentalist Christians so enamored with GW Bush.

    If you look back to 2000, no one knew what GW Bush actually stood for, and he really hadn't done anything but be the son of a former president. So everyone thought of him as a "good ol' boy" and voted for him for that reason... And they had grown tired of the Clinton administration and essentially wanted CHANGE...

    Don't you see the cycle? Not that it really matters anyway.
    the Minions
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    There you go again roland, talking about shit you know nothing about. If you consider 10 to 15 posters on a message board who didn't like Hillary as 'the obama crowd absolutely loathes hillary', then good luck with that.

    He has more than 10 supporters. Duh.

    Talking shit? Oh, this one is not too hard to figure out.

    It's a recurring trend everywhere I look. Hillary is the oil to Obama's water. It's practically vote for Bobo, and in the next breath I hope Hillary dies...

    Bobo fans felt VERY threatened (at the time) by Hillary from what I could see.
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

    Bobo fans felt VERY threatened (at the time) by Hillary from what I could see.

    Clinton was the virtual incumbent. She started February with about a 30 point lead in all polls. The underdog challenger is not "threatened" by the champ. That it isn't how it works. If anything, it was the other way around.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • raszputini
    raszputini Posts: 119
    inmytree wrote:
    nice work, Karl....

    the McCain camp should hire you as an apologist...rather at address, redirect...good use of Wright and Mrs. Obama...which of course doesn't address anything..

    again, nicely spun...

    by the way, where can I find a evidence supporting your assertion that McCain was called a "pussy" during the Keating Five...


    It's ironic that you say I am "spinning", yet you call me Karl Rove and don't respond to any of the substantive things I say. I think what you do is more likely to meet the definition of "spin"

    I certainly don't feel the need to apologize for McCain's religious affiliations in light of the Rev. Wright debaucle. No relationship of McCain's is as crazy as that. Call that spin if you want. It's reality. In all of my Obama 'bashing" I've never even brought up Wright, except as in response to "Falwell". I think neither are important enough to base my vote around.

    It is VERY TELLING that the only response anyone has is about Wright - none of the political issues or positions. Everything I posted are simply facts from the candidates mouths.

    Don't attack me, attack my ARGUMENTS.

    I can't remember where I read the "pussy" remark. I think I cited it in another post, somewhere. wikipedia has changed it to "wimp". I very clearly read that DeConcini called him something else though.

    The challenge still stands, and has been up for 3 days. Any Obama supporter please provide a POLICY reason for voting for Obama. Please ensure that you know what his policies REALLY are, though. It's amazing that there are so many supporters on this board and someone hasn't just crushed everything I am saying. Your candidate should give you more ammo.
  • raszputini
    raszputini Posts: 119
    cornnifer wrote:
    LOFL! No it isn't! You listen to Hannity to much which destroys your credibility. Show me, in print, from her thesis, where it says "i hate white people. i will hate white people for the rest of my life", and i'll give you a point. Heck, show me in her thesis where it even implies a hatred of white people and i'll give you half of a point.

    And since you would, theoretically be comparing the candidate's spouse to the candidate himself, you couldn't draw a parallel any damn way.

    Hannity is a hack and I never listen to anything he says. I'll agree that I'm probably not qualified to discuss her thesis. I can't read it all because she has had it pulled from the public domain. That alone makes me very suspicious - why wouldn't you want it read?(http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thesis.asp)

    I have read a few excerpts here or there and that seems to be what it focusses on. I'll concede that I probably shouldn't have said that. You probably shouldn't of said the tings you did about Cindy McCain either.

    We were both a little childish there.
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    raszputini wrote:
    You probably shouldn't of said the tings you did about Cindy McCain either.

    We were both a little childish there.

    Except i never mentioned Cindy McCain.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    cornnifer wrote:
    Clinton was the virtual incumbent. She started February with about a 30 point lead in all polls. The underdog challenger is not "threatened" by the champ. That it isn't how it works. If anything, it was the other way around.


    too hard to discern from all the anti-Hillary hate rhetoric....
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • raszputini
    raszputini Posts: 119
    cornnifer wrote:
    Except i never mentioned Cindy McCain.

    My apologies. This began when pj_gurl started on Cindy McCain.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    raszputini wrote:
    It's ironic that you say I am "spinning", yet you call me Karl Rove and don't respond to any of the substantive things I say. I think what you do is more likely to meet the definition of "spin"

    I certainly don't feel the need to apologize for McCain's religious affiliations in light of the Rev. Wright debaucle. No relationship of McCain's is as crazy as that. Call that spin if you want. It's reality. In all of my Obama 'bashing" I've never even brought up Wright, except as in response to "Falwell". I think neither are important enough to base my vote around.

    It is VERY TELLING that the only response anyone has is about Wright - none of the political issues or positions. Everything I posted are simply facts from the candidates mouths.

    Don't attack me, attack my ARGUMENTS.

    I can't remember where I read the "pussy" remark. I think I cited it in another post, somewhere. wikipedia has changed it to "wimp". I very clearly read that DeConcini called him something else though.

    The challenge still stands, and has been up for 3 days. Any Obama supporter please provide a POLICY reason for voting for Obama. Please ensure that you know what his policies REALLY are, though. It's amazing that there are so many supporters on this board and someone hasn't just crushed everything I am saying. Your candidate should give you more ammo.

    well, you really didn't discuss too much policy...

    anyhoo, I'll answer your question as to a policy Obama is espousing of which makes me want to support him....he focuses on the need to focus on our crumbling infrastructure...

    and to address your repeated repeated repeated assertion that obama supporters are not providing a POLICY reason for voting for Obama...I guess I wonder what you expect one to say...what I mean is, every candidate running office will say the following:

    I support education policy
    I support security policy
    I support strong economic policys
    I support policies that support freedom
    I want a sound energy policy
    and so on...

    and so on...my point is this, if you'd like to find out his policies, and more importantly, the how's and what's[/ii] take a look for yourself...

    my reason for supporting Mr. Obama can be summed up in a post by the great Abuskedti...
    Abuskedti wrote:
    I like his approach, I like that he thinks. I like what he says. This is a huge ship moving pretty fast. Its not easy to turn. There are no easy answers. No simple solutions. No "correct" policies. Everything is interconnected - everything is right in some ways and wrong in others.

    I like him because he is thinking and doesn't pretend that there are simple solutions.

    guess I can only go with my intuition since there is not truth to review.
  • raszputini
    raszputini Posts: 119
    You didn't discuss ANY policy...you discussed ships and generalizations based on nothing.

    I will vote AGAINST Obama because he supports continuing to erode US sovereignty with policies like the Global Anti-Poverty Act which is a tax on US Citizens that transfers our resources to the UN. Do you support that? That's what I mean by policies.

    I will vote FOR McCain because, he has the military experience and sense to get us out of Iraq without creating so much instability that we'll be forced to go back. I base that around is Congress and military record. He also has enough honesty to support a policy that may be unpopular, but is right. Obama's policy is nearly the same, but he rhetorically tries to pretend it is something else - that coupled with his lack of ANY real experience in foreign policy is worrisome to me.

    Education SHOULD be an issue that Obama supporters can rally around. The problem is that he hasn't offered any policy beyond a critique of Bush's policy.


    "Obama described the American public-education system as "morally unacceptable" and talked about making a "truly historic commitment" to improve it. Some of the highlights included his proposals to train more teachers and pay them better, to make college more affordable for those who commit to public service, and to fix the "broken promises" of the No Child Left Behind law. It's not entirely clear how he plans to pay for some of these proposals. For example, he promised to make community college completely free and offer a $4,000 tax credit to cover two thirds of the tuition at an average public college. He also made this pledge to those who sign up to become teachers: "If you commit your life to teaching, America will commit to paying for your college education."
    http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/5/30/obama-finally-talks-tough-on-education-policy.html)

    So, which education policy do you support? None, because there is none.

    Virtually the only "policy" that Obama has articulated beyond the garbled Iraq message he is sending is his tax plan, which really isn't HIS - it's Albert Goolsbee's. Most economic experts indicate that he will generate so little revenue that he wouldn't be able to pay for any services. Let alone the teacher raise he alludes to above.

    Infrastructure policy? His only strategy is throw money at it, which seems to be his answer to everything

    "Sen. Barack Obama Monday proposed spending billions to revitalize the nation's economy, a plan the campaign of his likely Republican opponent said would slow economic growth with higher taxes."(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/16/candidates.economy/index.html)

    So much for the "sound economic policy" you were talking about.

    By the way, did you know that while Obama was an Illinois Senator, the Chicago Skyway as well as other Chicago and Illinois roadways were SOLD to a Spanish conglomerate. That makes a lot of sense. Let's let the transportation around one of America's most populated and strategic cities be owned by a European country that less than 75 years ago supprted Hitler.


    You didn't know that did you? Of course not. Barry doesn't talk about it . Dont trust me, read it yourself. They own it for 99 YEARS. I don't think I have to explain the economic as well as SECURITY implications that selling off our infrastructure to foreign firms carries. It is a lot different than buying a building.

    http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2006/01/23/news/top_news/d4175b4b3b6e7890862570fe00188ac3.txt

    It makes a lot of sense when you examine Obama's policy towards the UN. The organization that Michelle is on the board of directors of - The Chicago Council on Global Affairs (which is like a mini-CFR), helped negotiate it.





    inmytree wrote:
    well, you really didn't discuss too much policy...

    anyhoo, I'll answer your question as to a policy Obama is espousing of which makes me want to support him....he focuses on the need to focus on our crumbling infrastructure...

    and to address your repeated repeated repeated assertion that obama supporters are not providing a POLICY reason for voting for Obama...I guess I wonder what you expect one to say...what I mean is, every candidate running office will say the following:

    I support education policy
    I support security policy
    I support strong economic policys
    I support policies that support freedom
    I want a sound energy policy
    and so on...

    and so on...my point is this, if you'd like to find out his policies, and more importantly, the how's and what's[/ii] take a look for yourself...

    my reason for supporting Mr. Obama can be summed up in a post by the great Abuskedti...


    If this quote from Abueskedti is the best you can do as far as rationale for your decision, then this post proves what I've been saying all along, more than I every could.

    Obama supporters, for the most part, are unaware of his policies (or lack thereof) and are going to cast their vote based around nothing more than a "hunch". There is no substance to anything Barry is saying, but he looks pretty while he does it. There is no legislative record to really looks at because he ducked anythign controversial, there is no real work history to even look at besides being a lawyer for a few years, everything else was non-profit. You're left with his book to tell you what he believes in.

    You guys owe it to yourselves and everyone else in this country to inform yourselves about what a candidate really stands for. You can probably better articulate why you want a particular American Idol contestant to win.
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    raszputini wrote:
    My apologies. This began when pj_gurl started on Cindy McCain.
    excuse me?
    i have never mentioned cindy mccain once in any conversation on this message board.....
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Talking shit? Oh, this one is not too hard to figure out.

    It's a recurring trend everywhere I look. Hillary is the oil to Obama's water. It's practically vote for Bobo, and in the next breath I hope Hillary dies...

    Bobo fans felt VERY threatened (at the time) by Hillary from what I could see.
    really..
    i think it was the other way around..
    can't recall obama or any of his supporters making comments about assasination attempts on HER. can you?
  • raszputini
    raszputini Posts: 119
    Multiple people have jumped in and out of this conversation. I apologize for not keeping straight who said what. It obvously wasn't pj_gurl either, but someone started on the whole Cindy McPills deal and saif a few crazy things in the context of our discussion. I responded with remarks about Michelle Obama's thesis that I can't really back up. I went off of second-hand shit I'd heard here and there, because her thesis has been pulled from the public domain.

    Regardless, all I was doing was trying to post that I wasn't qualified to make the remarks I did because I hadn't read all of her thesis, and to apologize for saying something I couldn't back up.

Categories