Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Barack Obama - The Rise of a Great Man?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
It's too early to tell if Obama is a great man yet. He's certainly as promising as JFK (another young senator from Harvard) was. I find him refreshingly direct and honest (or as honest as a politician can be). The Rev. Wright business doesn't bother me. I have some friends who have opinions as extreme as his, and while I don't agree with them I don't refuse their friendship either. I'm used to such radical thought, though I may not share it, and I think Obama has been exposed to it too. As he said in his speech, there is some anger there that needs to be addressed and understood. I have no fear that Obama is as extreme as Wright is--nothing in his political background suggests that.

How many who are criticizing Obama would really disown and walk out on any friend who said something less than "God bless America?"

Should we make a law that no one who has ever listened to criticism of America should be allowed to run for president?


[edit on 20-3-2008 by Sestias]




posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
and assuming that McCain is better than the rest because of it, is just another fanciful excuse as to not show any support for Obama.


Don't assume anything! I haven't decided who to vote for. I liked a lot that Ron Paul said. But seeing as he won't make it .. I'm stuck with either Hillary or McCain. Obama is definately out - because he doesn't have enough experience to get the job done AND what he is calling for, financially, isn't fair and this country can't afford.

None of them give me the warm fuzzies about border security.
I don't like McCain's view for Iraq.
I dont' like Hillary or Obama's 'culture of death' view.
I definately don't like Obama's proposed financial plans for America.
Hillary's health plan is better than Obama's but McCain is right about private care.
I don't like Hillary's baggage (white water, vince foster, missing WH silverware ...etc)
I don't like Obama embracing a racist and an anti-American (he HAS to share the views or else he wouldn't have been able to stomach the freak)
I don't like Obama using Messianic rhetoric about himself in his speeches.
I don't like Obama or Hillary and their 'big government' nanny states.
I don't like McCain having such a close working relationship with the Kennedys or with John "winter soldier' Kerry. (yuk).

I could go on forever with the 'I don't like .._________' list.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


Would it not be true to say that ALL candidates are compromised?[/url]


They all are. Bill Clinton's mentor wrote about the NWO and agreed with it. Bill Clinton agrees with his mentor's views. And of course he will be advising his wife. Furthermore they both are Bilderbergers and CFR members. That's compromised enough. And is also endorsed by the Rothschilds.

Btw.. there are lots more presidential candidates than just those from the two big parties.

Take a look at this site.

www.politics1.com...

John McCain is a CFR member. He's being endorsed and advised by no one other than Henry Kissinger. And is also being endorsed by the Rothschilds. That's compromised enough.


[edit on 20-3-2008 by TheBandit795]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Y'know, in the Thirties, I can recall that there was a leader, his political career fuelled by charisma and vague promises and appeals to the "people" to overcome division, and make a nation "great" again.

A World War, 40 million civilian/military casualties, a devastated and divided Europe, 6 million Jews and 5 million or more others exterminated through genocide, and a nation occupied by the U.S.A/France/Britain on one side, and Communist Russia on the other, Germans didn't quite think that Hitler was a "great man" after all.


If you want to see the similiarities, play an Obama speech, and compare that with one of Hitler's - watch as each charismatic leader throws out vague promises, which the cheering crowd swallows amidst much flag-waving.

But hey - I'm sure we'll get it right this time!




posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chaoticar
play an Obama speech, and compare that with one of Hitler's -


You aren't the first person I have heard say that. Hitler is rather a strong comparision ... but you aren't the first one I have heard to make remarks about how similar their speeches are.

My elderly mom keeps saying ... Obama = Jim Jones.
She's right.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
www.politics1.com...

That's fantastic! I had no idea all those folks were running.

The CRF and the Tri-lats have taken over our politics and our country.
It's frightening. Seriously frightening.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Obama is a losing ticket... He denounces Imus for the "Nappy Headed Ho" comment and demands his firing but wont denounce his own pastor for dissing whitey? Give me a break... He is a politician just like the rest. He is actually worse.

He embraces the hate American theme and so does his wife. Hillary is the same way... You want to see American in the third world? Start voting for these kinds of people.... Great man? I think not folks... You are being caught up in Hitler hysteria syndrome...



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Better start a new thread with that so more people will know that there are more people running for president than only republicans or democrats...


And lets see if they have the cojones to vote for someone else than the one who is "popular".



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Think of it this way: is a man not a man whether he is a presidential candidate or a pauper on the street?. now ask yourself this: if you had a friend with which you had been such for a very long time and one day he/she said/did something in which you did not agree would you simply turn your back on him/her after years of knowing said person?....If yes then please, by all means, tell your friends to start watching their backs because this is about to be come a back stabbing nation LMAO (as if it weren't already)



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




Obama is definately out - because he doesn't have enough experience to get the job done


Hmmm, I'm thinking whether to comment or not, once again, on how ignorant that statement is.



what he is calling for, financially, isn't fair and this country can't afford.


Please do elaborate. It's pretty obvious you didn't read my last post reply to you on the Obama's wife thread, so once again, I cannot seem to find any information to back up your claims about a shotty economic plan. It sounds like more information from Fox News if you ask me.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
how ignorant that statement is.

1 - it's the truth.
2 - watch what you call 'ignorant'. Glass houses berti.


It's pretty obvious you didn't read my last post reply

and once again ... your posts have been read. What you fail to understand berti is that just because you say it, that doesn't make it true. You may beleive that Obama has plenty of POTUS experience .. but the fact is ... he doesn't. Just because you print your opinion otherwise, that doesnt' make it true.


I cannot seem to find any information to back up your claims about a shotty economic plan.

Ahhh .. I see now. You don't get out much.
Here ya' go -

Every economics expert that has been interviewed on TV says that, without a doubt, Obama’s economics plans are very bad for America. Very bad.

The National Review discusses Obama's Spend-O-Meter.

Real Clear Markets has an excellent article that will educate the disciples of Obama. It’s titled – Obama stirs ill wind on Wall Street.

Las Vegas Review-Journal Called Obama's Plan "A Recipe For Economic Disaster." "Obama wants to raise the tax rate on the top income bracket from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, nearly double the tax rate on capital gains and dividends, and eliminate all tax breaks for the gas and oil industries and private equity firm managers. Talk about a recipe for economic disaster." (Editorial, "More Class Warfare," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9/20/07)

The US Chamber of Commerace gave Obama a rating of 55. That’s an F

Citizens Against Government Waste gave Obama a score of ‘13’. That’s an F. Heck, that’s an F minus!


The National Taxpayers Union gave Obama an F on spending issues.

In reference to Obama’s economics - Ryan Ellis, Americans For Tax Reform's Director Of Tax Policy: "That is a guaranteed way to not only wreck the economy and the capital markets, it's a guaranteed way for the government to lose tax revenue..." (Russell Berman, "Obama Would Shift Tax Burden To Wealthy," The New York Sun, 9/19/07)

Ben Stein – love him or hate him – he understands finances. He writes the economics column for the New York Times. Here are two quotes from him –

Stein: "Mr. Obama could become president and derail everything because his understanding of economics is 100 percent wrong. ... I must say I'm so scared about Mr. Obama becoming president. I can hardly tell you." (CNBC's "Kudlow & Company," 2/14/08)

Stein: "[Obama] understands nothing. He wants to shut down the oil companies, take away their profits. Kill every state teacher's pension fund that's invested in XOM [Exxon Mobil]. I am terrified of this guy. Either somebody has got to wise him up or he has to wise up himself or he will be real dangerous." (CNBC's "Kudlow & Company," 2/14/08)

The Watch Dog on Wall Street states that Obama’s economic manifesto is called a bunch of ‘campaign rhetoric’ by Quentin Hardy – a close apostle of Obamas who is involved in the campaign.

USA Today Obama admits he’s going to raise income taxes to pay for his tax and spend policies. Higher taxes means less money for the average American which HURTS the economy. And no – he’s not just going to soak-the-rich, he’s not just going to penalize the productive. Last week he voted to raise taxes for everyone all the way down to those making $31,000 a year. The Chicago Sun Times discusses that.

The CATO Institute describes Obama’s Social Security tax plan as one that would be extremely bad for younger workers. The CATO Institute refers to him as ‘no hope, no change’.

According to Obama $97,000 a year is ‘rich’. Guess that means that all the families where the husband makes $50,000 and the wife makes $50,000 are now ‘rich’. Heck .. even John Edwards knew that wasn’t true.

This page shows a few quotes from around the country. It may be a republican page .. but the quotes are very real.

This Blog says it all. Obama wants to tax who he considers ‘the rich’ to be .. because … and I quote Obama ‘THEY DON’T NEED IT’. Who the hell is he to decide if someone is worthy or not to keep their own income? He’s a typical Marxist. Takes from the productive and gives it away. Marxist ‘share the wealth’ … punishing the productive .. rewarding the unproductive.


Originally posted by bigbert81
It sounds like more information from Fox News if you ask me.

Well ... I didn't ask you.



[edit on 3/21/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Obama a great man? Hardly.

The "downtrodden" youth that he apparently came from was actually quite posh in comparison to the wide-awake nightmare that many kids today experience. Barack went to a private school, in Hawaii, lived in an upper-middle class home with his mother and 2 grandparents. Obama enjoyed luau's, museums, going to the beach, attending parties at the military base, etc. etc. How exactly is coming from such a privledged home and attending Harvard an uplifting story?

As for his relationship with Wright, its apparent that within the 20 YEARS that he attended his church, Obama must've heard similar hate-speech as has been shown on tv. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I would be rather uncomfortable attending a church where the pastor extolls from the pulpit for God to "damn America".

I apologize if my criticisms seem a little harsh; perhaps I'm just an example of what Senator Obama would refer to as a "typical white person". In claiming that his caucasian Grandmother was a "typical white person", he was insinuating that ALL white people are inherently afraid of African Americans. Because his grandmother would make racist statements that would make young Obama "cringe", that means that all white people are similarly racist? Perhaps his grandmother was simply an ignorant, bigoted old woman? No, certainly not. To Obama all White People are actually closeted racists who lay awake at night, fearful that some 'negro' might steal our golf clubs, right?

This man is a lout, a con-man, and a fake. He's all these things, and more, but a Great Man? Nothing could be further from the truth.

-edited for grammar

[edit on



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Ok, so let's see here, you give me 2 links to the same article to make it seem like more (Hillary been rubbing off on you?), a link to a scorecard telling nothing except for how they voted, a link to CAGW in which I can't seem to find any mention of Obama, 2 links talking about his plan costing more than Hillary's, a link to a Simpson's story and Quentin Hardy's opinion, 2 links talking about higher Social Security, a link talking about Obama's opinion of 'rich' which I agree aren't the people who really need more money currently, a link to a Republican page, and a link to a blog by an extremely biased nobody. Oh, and then to top it off, a link to a site that talks about his economic plan not even being accurate.

Hmmm, and you don't see a problem with this?

I will admit that I don't agree with everything the man has planned, but it still looks better than Hillary's or McCain's America.

Oh, and


There. I just thought since you seem to have made such use of it (for what reason I still cannot tell), I just thought I'd join in. It makes our posts look so cool!


And as far as the experience thing goes, hmmm let me see:

Obama's experience level has been compared with JFK and Lincoln, so if LACK of experience is responsible for those 2 men to guide us through turmoil, I'd have to give a point to Obama. All the more reason the OP might have a point.

Obama has held an elected office longer than Hillary, has more legislative experience, been in the Senate longer. However you want to look at it, that's the facts.

A CIA operation Obama was an advocate for turned out to be a huge success, despite the experienced Bush administration.

Obama was right about Pakistan while Clinton called him 'naive'.

Super-experienced McCain admitted to not knowing much about the economy. Another point for experience there too, huh?

Obama's and Hillary's voting records are near identical, except Obama voted AGAINST the war. Something his 'experienced' counterpart didn't do.

McCain's experience tells him he wants a perpetual war.


I tell you what, if 'experience' breeds people like Hillary Clinton or John McCain, give me someone with none.

[edit on 3/21/2008 by bigbert81]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
you give me ...

TONS of good info. Gotta' take off those rose colored obama-shades to be able to read it though.


Oh, and
...

GOOD! It keeps things much lighter and people are less likely to get ticked off!


JFK and Lincoln,

In the few years JFK was in office he nearly managed to start WWIII (bay of pigs). He gets a pat on the back for the space program... but his lack of experience and understanding of the world situation nearly destroyed the planet.

Lincoln was another time period all together. 150 years ago a POTUS could possibly be self taught and lack college and experience. Not today.


Obama has held an elected office longer than Hillary, has more legislative experience, been in the Senate longer.

Uh .. no. BTW .. you do know that Hillarys poltiical experience goes all the way back to the Nixon years, don't you? Check out Hillary's involvement in the process to oust Nixon.

.. and then there is all that international experience and all those international contacts she made and dealt with while in the White House. They are very real and very important.


Obama was right about Pakistan while Clinton called him 'naive'.

Actually, Obama said OUTLOUD that he wanted to keep the nuclear option open in regards to Pakistan. Clinton said that it was wrong to say it outloud. As POTUS you can think it and make movements toward it, but you certainly don't SAY IT and threaten a country like that. His statement was definately NAIVE. He didnt' know how to handle the international politics correctly.


Obama's and Hillary's voting records are near identical, except Obama voted AGAINST the war.

No they aren't. Obama refuses to vote and just says "present" AND he wasn't even in office to be able to vote for or against the war. So he couldn't have voted against the war. He wasn't even there.


McCain's experience tells him he wants a perpetual war.

While I disagree with him on his war stance he definately DOES have more military experience and therefore understand the battlefield better. Like it or not, we can't just cut and run. We have to pull out at a reasonable speed. Otherwise you just leave a big hole that backfills with very bad people. (remember the killing fields?)

McCain is too slow. Obama is too fast. Hillary has a reasonable exit strategy.

Oh .. and Obama did NOT say that he'd be done with Iraq. He said that if, after having cut and run, the insurgents 'come back' then we would too. THAT is unending because OF COURSE they'll be back. They haven't left yet.


I tell you what, if 'experience' breeds people like Hillary Clinton or John McCain, give me someone with none.

Well ... you got it ... Obama. He has no experience AND bad economics. He's also a typical politician... getting caught in lies and then whining that he's being 'smeared' or 'picked on'.



[edit on 3/21/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




TONS of good info


Yeah, that's why I said what I did.


And of course, Lincoln and Kennedy did more bad than good now.


Now you want to bring up the Nixon bit? Well, here you go:

www.freerepublic.com...

Another 'experience gone bad' story. She's been lying since her start.



Uh .. no.


Uhhh-yes. Obama's been in Senate for 12 yrs. compared to Hillary's 8.

Let's see here...Pakistan:

www.cnn.com...


Sen. Hillary Clinton said that Obama's foreign policy views were "irresponsible and frankly naive."


Where was the 'outloud' thing?



No they aren't. Obama refuses to vote and just says "present" AND he wasn't even in office to be able to vote for or against the war. So he couldn't have voted against the war. He wasn't even there.


Ok, you do have me there. That is true that he didn't ACTUALLY vote; however, it is bothersome that Hillary DID vote for it. And as far as the 'Present' vote, that is a strategy used in the Illinois Senate. It basically says that he WOULD vote for a bill if it was revised some. He explains why he voted 'present' as well, saying he thought many were unconstitutional at the time.

Now as long as we're posting links in regards to Obama's economy, here you go:

www.washingtonpost.com...

There's a bit of the other side for you.

And here's yet another counter to one of your links you've posted:

www.bloomberg.com...

And here's ANOTHER article to the Wall Street Journal whom you posted a link for earlier as well regarding the health care plans:

online.wsj.com...


Hurry along now little one, you've got some brushing up to do.


[edit on 3/21/2008 by bigbert81]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Don't assume anything! I haven't decided who to vote for. I liked a lot that Ron Paul said. But seeing as he won't make it .. I'm stuck with either Hillary or McCain. Obama is definately out - because he doesn't have enough experience to get the job done AND what he is calling for, financially, isn't fair and this country can't afford.


Well, we do agree on one thing... Ron Paul is the best candidate running, and unfortunately won't be running in the general election. I'm confused a bit, though, it seems you have already nominated Hillary for the Democratic candidate. I'm assuming you informed Harry Dean?


None of them give me the warm fuzzies about border security.

Amen!

Hillary's health plan is better than Obama's but McCain is right about private care.
I don't like Obama or Hillary and their 'big government' nanny states.

This is where I go nuts about Hillary. Her health care plan is simply to force every person to pay another bill, whether they want it or not. At least Obama has (so far) denounced that idea in favor of trying to lower rates. Now doesn't Hillary's plan sound more 'nanny-like'? Or am I being too conservative/right-wing on this?

McCain's record says he'll go along with Senator Clinton's health care plan if he wins. We have McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, and McCain-Kennedy, maybe we can get McCain-Clinton?


I don't like Hillary's baggage (white water, vince foster, missing WH silverware ...etc)

Careful, you might start to say something good about Obama...


I don't like Obama embracing a racist and an anti-American (he HAS to share the views or else he wouldn't have been able to stomach the freak)

Whew! That was close!


Maybe you live in a world where your acquaintances are required to agree with your views, but I do not. I have many friends with whom I disagree regularly. I guess I'm just a freak.



I could go on forever with the 'I don't like .._________' list.

Oh, so could I. I support Obama for two simple reasons: he's honest. He's being attacked by both parties. I'm not crazy about his policies, and I definitely will NOT vote for Rev. Knight come November.
But as I watch this contest, I see a man who has no worse policies that either of the other two jerks, and who is MUCH more honest about his past than either opponent.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
And of course, Lincoln and Kennedy did more bad than good now.


That's NOT what I said. Geeeeeze berti.

I said that Kennedy's lack of experience in international politics lead to the Bay of Pigs .. and almost started WWIII. I also said that he should get a pat on the back for the domestic space program.

Also, I did NOT dis Lincoln. I said that back then it was probably okay to have little experience, but today the world is a smaller place and you have absolutely got to have it.

Come on Berti .. stop saying that I said things when I clearly did not.


Another 'experience gone bad' story. She's been lying since her start.

No. She was there. And, although she didn't hold the office of Gov or POTUS, she was deeply involved in many aspects of the position. Her international connections and friendships are vitally important - especially in the coming years having to clean up Bush43s war fallout.


Uhhh-yes.

Uh .. no. As I said, she's been involved for MUCH longer. Her political and international career go way back .. way back to when obama was in grade school


Where was the 'outloud' thing?

She said - you may think it, but you don't say it. (the 'outloud' thing is my paraphrasing that)


it is bothersome that Hillary DID vote for it.

She voted for it based upon bad information. The senate can only go by what they are given. They made the right vote based upon the bad evidence. None of them can be blamed for voting 'yes'. It was the correct thing to do. If you want to be bothered with someone ... be bothered with Cheney and Rumsfield for providing bad info to our elected leaders.

It was the correct way to vote based upon the evidence they were given.


And as far as the 'Present' vote, that is a strategy used in the Illinois Senate.

It may or may not, be a 'strategy' from the state senate, but now he's in the big leagues. He claims to be for 'change' and 'hope' but when he gets a chance to vote to actually change things ... he folds. It's damn wimpy.

If he's carrying on like he's in the state senate then he has no business playing with the big kids on the playground. He needs to go back to his sandbox with the toddlers.


Hurry along now little one, you've got some brushing up to do.

Little one? Oh my ... you are kind.

My understanding of economics is just fine. I don't have to brush up. The fact is that educated and experienced economists understand that Obama cant do what he's promising (gee .. a politician promising the moon and not able to deliver .. typical eh?) . They also know that what he wants to do would be BAD for the economy. BAD BAD BAD. A disaster.

Berti ... you want the man ... go vote for him. But I promise you that once the rose-colored glasses fall away you will have buyers remorse. All the messianic rhetoric will fall short and the truth will be revealed - as happens in all cults. The Obama cult will have an ugly unveiling and his disciples will be left shattered. He's Jim Jones ...



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Ron Paul is the best candidate running,

I think so too.


it seems you have already nominated Hillary for the Democratic candidate.

No. Actually i think we will be stuck with Obama for that.

To be clear - I can't stand Hillary. She's a shrew. But she is better qualified then Obama. I'm just stating the facts. Personally - I think she's evil in the flesh. But Obama is worse.

I want the least-worst person in the White House. That means for the dems, Hillary is my pick. (which makes Obama reaaaaaaaaaally bad!)


doesn't Hillary's plan sound more 'nanny-like'?

Could be ... but Obama's leaves people out. I'm able to be swayed on this .. my mind hasn't been fully made up.

But health care isn't a deal breaker. Hillary is still better qualified (and less evil) then obama.


you might start to say something good about Obama...

NEVER! I can say something negative about Hillary and not be positive about Obama.


Maybe you live in a world where your acquaintances are required to agree with your views, but I do not.

Wright was more than an acquaintance. Obama PICKED him to be his spiritual advisor and mentor. For 23 years he has sat in Wrights 'church' and soaked up the hate.

I pick my close friends better than that. And if someone spews hate and/or anti-americanisms like that then I dont' bother with them. YES .. my close friends are required to agree with my view of not being racist pigs and anti-Americans.

You are stuck with co-workers. You are NOT stuck with people you choose to be in your inner circle. That's what Obama did.



I support Obama for two simple reasons: he's honest. He's being attacked by both parties.


Okay - lets discuss honest. He's lied about his stand on the war. He's flip flopped back and forth and at one point even admits to having held the same position as Bush and yet he claims that he's always been anti-war.

Tony Rezko. Honest? hmmmm ...

As for being picked on by the dems and republicans. I highly disagree.

The press gave him a free ride until the Wright story broke. After Obama's speech MSNBC swept it under the rug and praised the glory of Obama again - all the while ignorning the fact that Obama called his grandmother 'a typical white person' and the fact that Obama lied about being aware of Wrights racism and anti-americanism.

The Dems have crowned him their darling. They've given Hillary a very hard time (which I kinda like .. but that's another story).

McCain has gone out of his way to be nice to the guy. He got on someone for using Obama's middle name (which I don't understand since it IS his middle name) and he has gotten on people for giving Obama a hard time about Wright.

I don't see him being attacked by both parties. Not at all. Even if he were being attacked by republicans - so what? The way this country is set up is that we have opposing parties who are supposed to show that they are better than the other one. This isn't a hand holding spiritual moment kind of thing ... it's a political thing and we are supposed to scrub down and get all the facts out.

Question - when the dems start picking on McCain, will you switch sides and give him your sympathy vote?


[edit on 3/22/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



doesn't Hillary's plan sound more 'nanny-like'?


Could be ... but Obama's leaves people out. I'm able to be swayed on this .. my mind hasn't been fully made up.


This topic is really off topic here, but luckily I have a on-topic thread for it. Try here.


I pick my close friends better than that. And if someone spews hate and/or anti-americanisms like that then I dont' bother with them. YES .. my close friends are required to agree with my view of not being racist pigs and anti-Americans.


Then I submit to you, sir, that you are continuing the problem that made them into hateful people in the first place.

No one is born evil (unless their name is Rodham
), they are turned that way by their experiences. Knight is a hate-monger, yes. But where did that hate come from? What was done to him, said to him, or shown to him that caused him to be that way? We can either try to ignore people like him (as we already do) and thusly cause them to become more angry until they erupt into violence or die off, we can imprison and persecute them until the same result happens sooner, or we can at least attempt to acknowledge that something is wrong and make some sort of an attempt to try and fix it. I say the former hasn't worked; let's try the latter. That's what I heard in Obama's speech.


Okay - lets discuss honest. He's lied about his stand on the war. He's flip flopped back and forth and at one point even admits to having held the same position as Bush and yet he claims that he's always been anti-war.


Again, I heard something different. He did state that "I may have been wrong" on the war early on, when we were toppling Saddam quickly and it appeared we would accomplish our objectives quickly and with few casualties. But when that situation changed, he quickly reverted back to his original opinion, and most of the country moved with him. Barack never supported the war; he questioned the wisdom of his lack of support when faced with (temporary) evidence to the contrary.

Hillary did support the war. And if she was given bad information, she was given it by Bush, who, last I hear, was the dumbest man on the planet
. So what does that make Hillary?


Tony Rezko. Honest? hmmmm ...


Tony Rezco is not running for President. Obama's relationship to him, while extant, is casual. He bought some land from the man. He had dinner with him. They did some business together. That is a long cry from being an accomplice, and there is no evidence Obama was even aware of Rezco's shady dealings, as Obama has steadfastly claimed he never heard the sermon Knight's comments were taken from while attending his church.

Guilt by association now? That would put me in some very bad legal trouble if I were responsible for every action taken or word uttered by someone I knew well. Personal responsibility is a good thing; communal responsibility I have a hard time swallowing. Show me where Obama has agreed with Knight, or assisted Rezco in anything illegal; that will sway me.


McCain has gone out of his way to be nice to the guy. He got on someone for using Obama's middle name (which I don't understand since it IS his middle name) and he has gotten on people for giving Obama a hard time about Wright.


Yes, he has, and I applaud McCain for these actions. Barack HUSSEIN Obama means nothing; I didn't choose my (legal) name, and I assume neither did he. It was Bill Cunningham who childishly tried to attack Obama that way, at a McCain rally. McCain condemned Cunningham and the remark. Bravo!

I speak of the recent call by the hypocrite Limbaugh, Hannity, I even think Levin was in on it, to get Republican voters to vote in the Democratic primaries in TX/OH in order to win the nomination for Hillary. I speak of a once-favored opinionist, Glenn Beck, who recently has been examining every syllable that Obama has uttered in order to find 'Freudian slips' or perhaps a pause that could mean something untoward. This is manipulation and mudslinging at it's best (worst), and I despise and denounce it.


Even if he were being attacked by republicans - so what? The way this country is set up is that we have opposing parties who are supposed to show that they are better than the other one. This isn't a hand holding spiritual moment kind of thing ... it's a political thing and we are supposed to scrub down and get all the facts out.


That's the general election; the primaries are supposedly internal party decisions. But even if we agree that the purpose is to 'get all the facts out', I don't see personal friendships, nit-picking words, or alleged rumors as accomplishing those goals. I am interested in two things from any candidate: 1) Can I trust them? Obama, probably, Hillary, never, McCain, unsure. 2) What are their policies? That one I am still working on, trying to sort through all the idiotic rhetoric.


Question - when the dems start picking on McCain, will you switch sides and give him your sympathy vote?


It will probably make me more sympathetic toward him, yes. That's how I view mudslinging; I place the mud on the slinger rather than the target. But even if it does, I will not have 'switched sides'. I am on the side of the USA. I am looking for the best candidate for the country. At this point I believe it is Obama.

TheRedneck









 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join