reply to post by FlyersFan
No I didn't. I read it. But it was completely flawed.
Berti .. just because you say it, doesn't make it fact, ya' know?
No, but I at least shouldn't have to go back and repeat myself for something I said just on the previous page. How many times do you NORMALLY have
to hear something before you get it?
Either he doesn't know better, or he believes the crap Wright spews
Yep. I guess you've narrowed it down to the only 2 options. I'm still trying to decide which one of these fits me for the friend I have whom I
Thank you kind Sage. Hmmm, only 2 choices...
He was foolish then .. and he's STILL foolish at almost 50 years old for hanging out with the guy and making him his mentor. You can't excuse him
because he started the relationship in his early 20s.
Wow, talk about blind. I trust you believe and follow everything YOUR friends believe? Tell me, if they jumped off a bridge, would YOU jump off a
bridge as well?
the man has a relative empty resume ... he doesn't have potential POTUS level 'contributions'
Hmmm, that is a 100% opinionated matter. Please do share YOUR requirements for becoming president; afterall, who the hell cares about the issues or a
man's views, WE only care about experience, because what he says goes, and nobody else has anything at all to do with it.
any 'contributions' he may have do NOT excuse him for his very close and long term association with anti-white/anti-American Wright.
YES I can say 'too little, too late' because that's exactly what it is. Obama wasn't going to do any denouncing of this guy and the ONLY reason he
did was because the house fell down on top of him. Too little, too late. And his denouncement was completely unbelievable
As far as Wright being friends with Obama, too little too late. Sound familiar? If Wright is TRYING to make Obama look bad, too little too late.
Now, do you SEE how that term can be used both ways?
And wow, I can see that you read minds too. Yes, it's clearly obvious that Obama wouldn't have done anything had the 'house fell on top of him'.
Amazing you can see what Obama's moves WOULD have been. Amazing. Have you ever tried calling James Randi?
YOU certainly are!
Wow. Good one. Very clever.
Your post insinuated it. You called Hillary and McCain liars and said that we shouldn't vote for them because of it. I showed that Obama is also a
liar. Thus, any arguement that he's better because Hillary and McCain are liars is a non-arguement. They ALL lie.
Hmmm, shouldn't we be looking at everything going on here? Let's compare WHO exactly has a REAL track record of lying. Answer: Hillary.
Who has cheated, and admits to intent to cheat to win? Hillary.
Who went against a PLEDGED oath to get what he/she wanted? Hillary.
Who's campaign is run off of lies and UNDISCLOSED information? And yes, that DOES include the TRUE source of her $5 million. Hillary.
Who thinks it's right to FORCE Americans, under penalties, to pay for health insurance, whether they can afford it, need it, want it, or not?
Who has a public speaking record of supporting NAFTA? Hillary.
Who has refused to TALK with at least one of our enemies first? Hillary.
Who supports torture? McCain
Who supports a PERPETUAL war? McCain
Who has the endorsements of Bush and Cheney (using YOUR logic here)? McCain
Who will most likely mirror Bush and Cheney's stay in office? McCain
Who, if elected, has the better chance of attacking Iran? McCain
Who's spiritual guide (your logic again), want to DESTROY Islam? McCain.
Who has been caught lying more than Obama, yet less than Hillary? Take a guess.
Who has been publicly heard making racist remarks? McCain.
Who's the MOST experienced candidate who has admitted "he doesn't really understand economics?" McCain. Score one for experience, huh?
I could go on and one with these.
Everyone has already shouted why. Many times. Your pro-obama biased-ness is getting in the way here berti
And why do you think I'm Obama biased, especially after reading the above?
Obama is a proven liar - just like all politicians. Therefore he is NOT about 'change' or 'hope'. He's just another politican
I guess that depends on what your definition of 'change or hope' is. That should be pretty obvious.
Obama claims he's the candidate of 'unity' but he has been an active participant in an anti-american/anti-white church for 20 years. His spiritual
advisor and personal mentor is a racist pig. Therefore Obama is NOT a candidate of 'unity'
No. It's a victim mentality, which I will admit, I don't quite agree with, but then again, I've never had to deal with some of the stuff these
people have. It's not so much 'anti-white' as it is pro-black. I suggest you separate the 2.
Judicial Watch has him as one of the top ten most corrupt politicians in DC.
Tony Rezko ... read up
BECAUSE of Tony Rezko. Quit trying to separate the two to make it sound worse.
An empty resume compared to Hillary and McCain.
Hmmm, let's see what 'EXPERIENCE' has really done. Well, like I said, McCain has ADMITTED to not knowing much about economics. And let's see
here, Obama's and Hillary's voting records are nearly identical, except for one BIG factor. The war. Hillary voted FOR the war. Obama against.
Yeah, I guess that must've been experience talking there, huh?
Not to mention Obama being correct about Pakistan while Clinton was calling him naive. Another point for experience.
What he claims to want to do with America is financially impossible. He'd destroy what is left of this economy. Every economist says so. (not to
mention the fact that what he wants goes deep into socialism - and we are NOT a socialist country)
I'm sorry, but I fail to see this. Please give me some of your sources for this info. Funny, I'm doing some looking, yet I can't seem to find
ANYTHING that agrees with you. Did you get your information from Fox? C'mon, did you? Maybe you left the TV on and got caught up in Hannity &
his wife is a racist and anti-american
Ummm, isn't that what we're debating in this thread? So therefore, I don't think it's quite fair to make statements like this like they're
Thank you, I try.
[edit on 3/19/2008 by bigbert81]