Barack Obama - The Rise of a Great Man?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

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

Sir? I'm a girl.
Just FYI.

I can't stomach people who spew racist hate. I can't stomach people who blame a different race for all their problems. I can't be around them. I avoid them. So how on earth does this make me 'continue the problem'???????


when that situation changed, he quickly reverted back to his original opinion,

Right. Like I said. Changing his position based upon what is going on at the time. He was never 'always against the war'. For him to say so is wrong. His position changed with the tide.


So what does that make Hillary?

That makes Hillary someone who did her job correctly. (I can't stand the woman, but she voted correctly)

Those in the senate can not micromanage the entire government. They have to be able to trust the other elected officials to some degree. ALL the information coming in pointed to the decision she made being correct and necessary.

She, and everyone else who voted for the war, did so, and did so correctly. Blame for bad intelligence (oh .. we could make a few comments, couldn't we!
) goes straight to the State Department AND to the Bush administration. It doesn't rest with the senate.


Tony Rezco is not running for President.

No. Obama is. And any shady dealings and relationships he has had need to be examined. Same with Hillary's Rose Law Firm and Vince Foster. Same with Bush and his oil holdings. Same with Cheney and Halliburton.


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.

that should tell you something right there. It was WELL KNOWN in Chicago-land that Rezko was a crook. Same as it was WELL KNOWN that Wright was an anti-American racist pig.

If he was unaware of those things then he had his head in the sand. And that's something you don't want a POTUS to do. Frankly, his claims of ignorance are unbelievable.


Show me where Obama has agreed with Knight, or assisted Rezco in anything illegal; that will sway me.


Wright - he showed that he agreed by staying in the pews for 23 years and nodding his head in agreement. He showed that he agreed by donating money all those years. He showed that he agreed by maintaining a very close relationship with Wright, even calling him 'like an uncle'. He showed that he agreed by choosing Wright to baptise his children. if he disagreed, he would have walked out and stopped donating money - the same way that Oprah Winfrey walked out. He didn't. Therefore, he agreed.

Rezco - Obama entered into business dealings with him - land purchases. Therefore he agreed with the way Rezco did business and/or decided to take advantage of what he knew to be shady dealings. As I said - it was no secret in Chicago-land that Rezco was a crook.

The New York Times Says that Obama knew Rezco for 20 years. The guy wasn't a stranger to him.

The Sun Times probably has the best information on all of Obama/Rezco dealings and their relationship. Hold your nose while you read it .. the stench is pretty bad.

NBC/You Tube Watch this video. It's only 2 minutes or so. It shows the buildings in question and it states that Obama did legal work for Rezco.

CNN "everyone knew Rezco was a crook" .. and more

ABC News ohh .. this has LOTS of evidence that Obama had to know the guy was corrupt AND that Obama changed his story in regards to Rezco many times.


I speak of ... Limbaugh, Hannity, ... Glenn Beck,

Those on the right are going to vet Obama and Clinton. Vetting is supposed to happen. The left will be vetting McCain, once they figure out which of their own party they want to put forward for the general election.


I don't see personal friendships, nit-picking words, or alleged rumors as accomplishing those goals.


Personal friendships - if those friends are crooks or racist pigs it definately tells you about the person running for office. It tells you where his head is and how he will running things and how he will be representing America. Someone's 'spiritual advisor' and 'mentor' is much closer than just a friend. This person ADVISES the potential POTUS. That's big. Wright is an advisor to Obama. Has been for 23 years.

Nit-picking words - Words are very important. There is no 'nit-picking' of words. The POTUS has to be very clear (something Bush43 has a hard time with - eh?? ) Everything a president says will mean something to someone. Everything a president says will have an impact at home and overseas. There is no 'nit-picking'. It's vetting. It's important.

Alleged rumors - like what? Obama being gay? I don't think anyone believes that or cares.


1) Can I trust them?

They are all politicians and therefore are most likely after their own glory. Trust them? Trust any of them? Not fully. Lieberman comes the closest to being an 'honest' politician these days. At least he's the only one I can come up with at the moment.


2 )What are their policies?
GREAT! Obama's proposed polcies. Lets see ... Economics. Promise the moon and not be able to pay for it without breaking the economy completely. That about sums up his economic policy. Border Security - they all have policies that stink.


At this point I believe it is Obama.

Like I told berti ... you want him .. go vote for him. I just hope that you don't have buyers remorse if he gets in. (and I'm sure if he does get in, you will). You don't sound like an Obamatron who uses messianic rhetoric and who views Obama as Christ-like. I'm glad to see that you are open to seeing his faults. Many of his disciples are not.



[edit on 3/22/2008 by FlyersFan]




posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Nah, he is just a typical ______ man, but I wonder if he could dunk a basketball.

He is still a Mac Daddy



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Sir? I'm a girl.
Just FYI.


Yipes!
My bad, I never checked your profile. Sorry about that.


I can't stomach people who spew racist hate. I can't stomach people who blame a different race for all their problems. I can't be around them. I avoid them. So how on earth does this make me 'continue the problem'???????


The extreme position you just showed. I don't mean to single you out, of course. I am simply attempting to point out that whenever we, as a society, or as a race, or as a group condemn someone without regard to even trying to understand what caused their hatred, we continue the hatred.

I would hazard to guess that Rev. Knight has never had a good experience with a white person. I would also hazard to guess that if he did indeed have good experiences with whites, his outlook would be different and we would have one less hate-monger to deal with. It's a crazy idea, but think it over.


Changing his position based upon what is going on at the time. He was never 'always against the war'. For him to say so is wrong. His position changed with the tide.


I see it more as changing with the facts. Bush changed his position as well when he agreed with Petreus on the surge. Correctly, IMO. But if you want to split hairs, then yes, he did soften his opposition at one point.


Blame for bad intelligence (oh .. we could make a few comments, couldn't we!
) goes straight to the State Department AND to the Bush administration. It doesn't rest with the senate.


LOL, I see we do have similar feelings on some issues. Yes, the final responsibility for bad intelligence rests upon the shoulders of Bush. But wait... that does mean Hillary changed her mind about the war as well, more so than Obama, based on changing conditions. Are you arguing that Obama changed his position, or that you think he should acknowledge it more?


If he was unaware of those things then he had his head in the sand. And that's something you don't want a POTUS to do. Frankly, his claims of ignorance are unbelievable.


Well, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject. I will say this: If Obama is lying about his knowledge of either situation (Rezco or Knight), I feel certain the Republicans will bring it out in the general election. And if it is proved to my satisfaction, that will be a huge black mark on Obama's character as far as I and my vote are concerned. Someone wake up McCain and tell him so he can start digging.


Those on the right are going to vet Obama and Clinton. Vetting is supposed to happen. The left will be vetting McCain, once they figure out which of their own party they want to put forward for the general election.


You do have a point. I think my present problem is trying to decide which party os going after Obama. Anyone have a scorecard I can borrow?



Nit-picking words - Words are very important. There is no 'nit-picking' of words. The POTUS has to be very clear (something Bush43 has a hard time with - eh?? ) Everything a president says will mean something to someone. Everything a president says will have an impact at home and overseas. There is no 'nit-picking'. It's vetting. It's important.


I am referring to a spot on Beck's show where he was micro-analyzing whether a word was intended to be in the present tense or the past tense. I doubt the CIA analyzes Osama Bin Laden's tapes that carefully. As for complete words, of course they're important. That's why I listen to them. Even Obama's.


Alleged rumors - like what? Obama being gay? I don't think anyone believes that or cares.


You forgot a few... Obama being a terrorist, Obama being a Muslim, Obama being gay, Obama being ashamed of the American flag, Obama swearing his oath on the Koran, Obama being a communist sympathizer... and I think these things without proof are just silly. I much prefer arguments like yours, where the facts are relevant.

Oh, and there are some people who believe and care, I know some personally.


Lieberman comes the closest to being an 'honest' politician these days.


No argument here on Lieberman (or on politicians in general). Obama appears to me to be the most trustworthy of the three viable candidates at this time. Lieberman isn't running.


Obama's proposed polcies. Lets see ... Economics. Promise the moon and not be able to pay for it without breaking the economy completely. That about sums up his economic policy. Border Security - they all have policies that stink.


I hear that from some, and the opposite from others. I sincerely wish we could get this Primary over with so we could get down to policies. At this point, I honestly don't know who to believe. So I'll wait and see.


I just hope that you don't have buyers remorse if he gets in.


Arrrrg, and I was starting to like you until you placed that burden on me. I already have plenty of remorse from a vote for Bush in 2000.



You don't sound like an Obamatron who uses messianic rhetoric and who views Obama as Christ-like. I'm glad to see that you are open to seeing his faults. Many of his disciples are not.


That would possibly be because I'm not an Obamatron (new word? I like it). I'm not a Repubictron, nor a Demotron, etc. I am an American who wants the best for his country, be it Obama, McCain, or Hill... well, let's not get carried away here.

Seriously, as I have pointed out many times, I am still not completely decided about Obama. I know that I will not, under any conditions, vote for Hillary in any capacity. I truly believe the woman is evil. And I have a hard time trusting McCain. I will review the links you posted, and I hope you will consider what I said about the racism (as a suggestion and not a challenge, please). One thing I discovered in my old age was just what a mess I made in my youth. It behooves us all to occasionally look at our views from a fresh perspective.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
earth2, a good man and a good orater, as several have pointed out, but the true test of greatness would come after he is elected.
Already he has started to close the divide, heal the wounds, of a divided nation. And, for posters from around the world, thank you for your hopes of a president to bring back America's great reputation among its many friends.

I offer this for your thread, sent to me by a friend:
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and
another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20
- twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress
www.thomas.loc.gov
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition
Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial
of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on
winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's LacRose Team on
winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution
Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express
condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters
who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are more
substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine
victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as

[For] Obama's
    , [d]uring the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored
    over 820 bills. [Among them] He introduced

    233 regarding healthcare reform,
    125 on poverty and public assistance,
    112 crime-fighting bills,
    97 economic bills,
    60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
    21 ethics reform bills,
    15 gun control,
    6 veterans' affairs and many others.

    His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and
    co-sponsored another 427. These included:

    the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law
    The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons
    Threat Reduction Act, - became law
    The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate
    The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law
    The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In
    committee, and many more.
    In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890
    bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

    I submit these for comparison of "experience".

    As I have stated elsewhere, Obama is an MP4 player to Clinton's cd and McCain's cassette. He is a person ready to lead in the 21st century.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by desert
 


Wish I could give applause, but I suppose a star will do.

I agree, Obama seems to be the best choice. It's quite amazing to go from a stuck up old white guy, who couldn't give a speech if it was about beer and hunting, to a guy who almost seems as if he's speaking off the top of his head.

Obama is an amazing speaker. Experience aside, he should be a great diplomat to other countries, and will hopefully put a dent in the damage that Bush has caused to our foreign relations.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
FlyersFan, hey how are you doing today. I have noticed that you have alot of PTS, ATS, BTS, SAT, ACT scores, very high indeed. I just wanted to point out that since you pointed out some of the negatives of Obama, if we done that with Hillary this post would be the longest post on the net and prolly wont have enough space (with all the harddrives in the world) to store just her lies alone!!

No disrespect, FlyersFan.


Also wanted to point out that she admitted to not reading the intelligence report. So how can she had made the right decision on going to war? From my time in Iraq and Afgan, i have to say that the reason they give the american people for going to war was some what false and the part that wasn't false was just part of the agenda since we were going over there, i.e Iraqi Freedom. I work Parris Island, sc and we go there often.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by rakillah]



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by desert
Already he has started to close the divide, heal the wounds, of a divided nation.

No he hasn't.
Seriously man .. read the thread.

Watch the Rezco films. The guy is dirt. Obama claims to have been campaigning to help improve living conditions for people in Chicago-land .. all the while he was cozying up with the slum lord and taking campaign contributions from him.

Obamessiah is just another Jim Jones. The press had been giving him a free ride and still fails to call him on his short comings. His glassy-eyed disciples fail to see that he's just a cult persona. Nothing more.

- He's on Judicial Watchs Top 10 most corrupt politicians list. That's a rather big negative accomplishment considering how very short a political career he's had. (Hillary is on the list too)

- REZCO. Illegal land deals. Contributions to campaigns. Obama claimed the guy was his friend for more than a decade - and then claimed he had no knowledge that Rezco was a criminal. ALL of Chicago -land knew. Obama is either incredibly stupid and doesn't know what's going on around him - or he lied.

- He's a racist. Yep. He hates whites (we are all typical whites
) and hates jews and pretty much hates America. If he didn't, then he wouldn't have stayed at that racist and anti-american cesspool of a 'church' for 20+ years and he wouldn't have donated tens of thousands of dollars to it for them to continue their hate-fest. Again he claimed no knowledge of what was going on - but he made other statements that showed he LIED when he made that claim. Obama is either incredibly stupid and doesn't know what's going on around him - or he lied. Evidence says he lied.

This past week he got on The View and lied again. To cover his own butt he claimed that Rev. Wright said he was sorry for his racist and anti-american rants but the fact is that WRight NEVER said he was sorry and even Obama's own people say Wright isn't sorry. Obama is just telling lies to get votes (again).



Originally posted by rakillah
if we done that with Hillary this post would be the longest post on the net

Sure. I'd be adding examples of Hillary telling lies to the list.
Hillary is a shrew. So what's your point?


she admitted to not reading the intelligence report.

Please post a link to that. I'd like to read it.
I know she was at least briefed on the intelligence report.


So how can she had made the right decision on going to war?

The information provided by the State Dept and the Bush Admin all pointed to the fact that going to war was the right thing to do. The Senate made the right decisions based on bad evidence. The fact that the evidence wasn't good is NOT the fault of anyone in the senate. The fault lies directly with the State Dept and the Bush Admin.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
Obama is an amazing speaker.

So was Hitler. So was Jim Jones.


Experience aside, he should be a great diplomat to other countries, ...

Well .. the terrorist government of Syria LOVES him.
Their state run TV is madly in love with Obama.

Same with the FARC terrorists in Venezuela. They cant' wait for him to get in office so that he will drop aid to Columbia, thus allowing the FARC terrorists (who work for anti-American Chavez) to overthrow Columbia.

One of many sources of the story

Oh yes .. you are right .. a whole lotta' folks - BAD FOLKS - cant' wait for Obama to get in office.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Jeez, you're pretty far gone, eh?

You been watching a bit too much O'Reilly and listening to some Limbaugh?

Are you a Clinton supporter I hope? I know that no Bush supporter would ever have the balls say Obama and Hitler in the same sentence (Patriot Act).

I bet a lot of countries out there are hoping Obama will win. That way, if they have a disagreement with the US, they don't have to worry about having a bomb dropped down their throat.

I don't blame them one bit.

*Edited to add:

This guy really believes this stuff! I promise he has no idea why everyone seems to want Obama. It's because we're tired of people, like FlyersFan, threatening our lives with "terrorists groups".

He actually believes that if we vote Obama, the terrists (sic) win.


OMG, the terrists (sic) are gunna get us. Turn the weird color system of danger to "RED".

Why Syria likes Obama

Still, Obama has indicated greater interest in promoting a comprehensive peace settlement, acknowledging that the "Israeli government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart." And, unlike the Bush administration, which successfully pressured Israel not to resume peace negotiations with Syria, Obama has pledged never to block an Israeli prime minister from the negotiation table. (See my article: Divide and Rule: U.S. Blocks Israel-Syria Talks.)


And why wouldn't you post what they said in Columbia, instead of just making it seem like our lives were in danger:


6. The gringos will ask for an appointment with the minister to solicit him to communicate to us his interest in discussing these topics. They say that the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support "Plan Colombia" nor will he sign the TLC (Colombian Free Trade agreement). Here we responded that we are interested in relations with all governments in equality of conditions and that in the case of the US it is required a public pronouncement expressing their interest in talking with the FARC given their eternal war against us.


By the way, great source. It starts with the word "pundit", and we're in a politics forum.



[edit on 30-3-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
O'Reilly ... Limbaugh?

Actually, I don't like either of them. Rush too. Can't stand 'em.


Are you a Clinton supporter

Nope. I'm a nobody supporter at this time.


I bet a lot of countries out there are hoping Obama will win.

Sure .. a anti-american countries who understand that Obama means a weaker America. A lot of anti-american terrorist groups as well.


we're tired of people, like FlyersFan, threatening our lives with "terrorists groups".

hey buddy - it's the TERRORIST GROUPS that are threatening your life .. and your way of life. Not me.
(actually, I served in the US Military for 5 years - to keep American lives from being threatened!)

And as far as people being 'tired of FlyersFan' exposing Obama for what he is .. wrong! I'm getting plenty of stars and applauses for posting the facts.


He

I'm a girl. And learn how to spell terrorists will ya?



It starts with the word "pundit", and we're in a politics forum.

Hey kiddo - pundits discuss politics. AND the information was correct.
The FARC terrorists are madly in love with Obama. So is the Syrian Govt.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Sure .. a anti-american countries who understand that Obama means a weaker America. A lot of anti-american terrorist groups as well.


If he can turn the economy around, just that alone makes America stronger. Despite the awesome facade we portray, we are not doing incredibly well as a country right now. We are spending far more money than we have.

As a business... this country fails. F-


Originally posted by FlyersFan
hey buddy - it's the TERRORIST GROUPS that are threatening your life .. and your way of life. Not me. (actually, I served in the US Military for 5 years - to keep American lives from being threatened!)

And as far as people being 'tired of FlyersFan' exposing Obama for what he is .. wrong! I'm getting plenty of stars and applauses for posting the facts.


Which terrorists groups plan to attack us after Obama takes office? Have any stated this?

Do you realize that Obama would probably make us safer from al Qaeda with the use of no military force?

Diplomacy can do wonders, and with Obama in office, you can rest assured that our relations with other countries will improve.

So to sum up:

  • Hopefully Obama can help turn the economy around. When he takes our troops out of Iraq, we'll hopefully save enough money to reinvest in our own country.

  • He will undoubtably improve our foreign relations (which will also help our economy)

  • The country will be more safe from terrorists, without fighting a war or deploying our troops. We can only hope Obama will know what many of us informed American's know:

    No one wants to attack America due to our freedom.

    If we don't want to be threatened by Middle Eastern terrorists, the solution is simple:

    Quit sanctioning Muslims while supporting their enemies. Quit controlling their education system. Quit occupying their territories. Quit spreading Western propeganda to a country that disagrees with our values.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
I'm a girl. And learn how to spell terrorists will ya?


My bad, I assumed due to the whole hockey thing. Anyway, clearly I was misspelling terrorists to mock the whole redneck pronunciation.



Originally posted by FlyersFan
Hey kiddo - pundits discuss politics. AND the information was correct.
The FARC terrorists are madly in love with Obama. So is the Syrian Govt.


Yes this "kiddo" also knows that pundits spew more biased, bipartisan garbage than anyone else. When I hear the word "pundit", I know it means change the channel, because some dumb jerk is going to get on TV so that he/she can mudsling some useless garbage that has nothing to do with anything.

Fact^^

How do you suppose FARC or Syria's approval will be detrimental to the US? Can we get some more facts besides:

"OMG the terrists are gunn git us!!!"?




posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
If he can turn the economy around, just that alone makes America stronger.


You must have missed all this about Obama being a DISASTER to American Economics. Here .. I'll repeat it for ya' ..

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.


Do you realize that Obama would probably make us safer from al Qaeda with the use of no military force?

Do you realize that Al Qaeda and muslim extremists were attacking us and our interests LONG BEFORE we went into Iraq and Afghanistan? Remember 9/11? The USS Cole? The Embassy bombings? etc etc


No one wants to attack America due to our freedom.

In bold eh?
Yes they do. Our freedom of religion. We are infidels. We should all be dead according to the muslim extremists. Live by shiria law - like they are trying to push in England. That's definately an attack upon our freedoms.


How do you suppose FARC or Syria's approval will be detrimental to the US?

FARC and Syria are both anti-American. FARC are murderous terrorists and SYRIA is a terrorist nation. They KNOW that Obama will change the way America runs itself internationally - leaving our friends and allies vulnerable as well as our homeland. FARC is Chavez's right hand. Remember him? He has stated over and over he wants America destroyed.


Originally posted by Sublime620
"OMG the terrists are gunn git us!!!"?

Yes, they've done it many times before .. and they want to again.
Short term memory loss Sublime?




[edit on 3/30/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
You must have missed all this about Obama being a DISASTER to American Economics. Here .. I'll repeat it for ya' ..


First of all, I said if. However, let's review those sources of yours:

Your first source:

The National Review

Really? The national review. A conservative magazine. Great non-partisan source you got there. You sure you don't listen to Limbaugh?

Want to know more about this magazine you quote all over the place? Take your own advice and read up:

National Review

Here's the National Review talking about how great Bush was with the economy:

National Review on Bush

Perhaps they didn't realize Bush was just riding the Clinton wave.

After the Clinton wave was ending, and the economy began it's slow fall into the abyss, here's the National Review still sticking up for Bush:

National Review still thinks Bush Rocks!!!

Even more relevant, here's the National Review in 2008 sticking up for Bush and the weak dollar he has produced:


What exactly is wrong with an optimistic president who has confidence in the long-run future of the American economy?

President Bush took this stance in a recent interview with me and at the Economic Club of New York. He told me, “Like any free market, there’s also downturns, and we’re in one. But I am confident in the long-term strength of our economy.”


It goes on to list so many more tough problems Bush has had to deal with (or more likely, ignore or bail out).

RealClearMarkets: Another conservative suck up.

Bush Makes the Best of a Bad Situation

ROFLMAO. I don't say that very much, but


How many times have I heard the Bush Administration and his idiot followers say that.

Quit quoting conservative magazines, will ya?


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)


That sounds like a wet dream to the American public to me... oh, that is, unless you actually believe in the "Trickle Down Effect"??


Sounds a bit like the Clinton era... and we all remember how terrrrrible the economy was then!!!



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

That is a "How they Voted Scorecard." Here is what is included:

1 - Tax Relief Extension—H.R. 4297
2 - Medical Liability Reform—S. 22
3 - Small Business Health Plans—S. 1955
4 - Tax Relief Extension—H.R. 4297
5 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform—S. 2611
6 - Death Tax—H.R. 8
7 - Defense Authorization—S. 2766
8 - Offshore Energy—S. 3711
9 - Pension Reform—H.R. 4
10 - Port Security—H.R. 4954
11 - Oman Free Trade—H.R. 5684
12 - India Nuclear Cooperation—H.R. 5682

READ YOUR SOURCES. Voting records are terrible sources of information. You can never tell why some may/maynot vote for something. Often times, great bills are not passed due to the pork they are laden with.


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


Fix your link. It doesn't go to any specific page. We'll discuss it when you fix it.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
The National Taxpayers Union gave Obama an F on spending issues.


Same with this link... but I will comment on it. When he brings our troops home, he'll be able to afford to spend a little more.

You know, with that extra 12 Billion a month he'll be saving?


Originally posted by FlyersFan
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.


Did you even notice that most of that article is about the Simpsons... great source.



Originally posted by FlyersFan
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.


Actually, if you read the USA Today article about SS Tax, he's just increasing the cap. That doesn't affect most people.

The Chicago Sun Times article is down... can't comment. Check your sources?

Okay, I'm done tearing your sources up. Anyone can find some partisan garbage to quote. I guarantee you I could find sources that say the same about Clinton, and probably McCain.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Do you realize that Al Qaeda and muslim extremists were attacking us and our interests LONG BEFORE we went into Iraq and Afghanistan? Remember 9/11? The USS Cole? The Embassy bombings? etc etc


Tisk Tisk. Typical American who knows nothing of our endeavours in the Middle East.

Would you like to know more about what we have been doing out there, or do you care to remain in the dark? Iraq and Afghanistan are just the newest of our Middle East faux pas.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
In bold eh?
Yes they do. Our freedom of religion. We are infidels. We should all be dead according to the muslim extremists. Live by shiria law - like they are trying to push in England. That's definately an attack upon our freedoms.


Once again, someone who tells us our lives are in danger from terrorists, and you don't even know the reason why.

Do you even know why Osama bin Laden attacked us? Why don't you go look up his speech and read it?

Again, would you like me to make it easy for you and post it? Just let me know.





[edit on 30-3-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Sigh...Sublime, maybe I do want to go back to the "golden time" of my childhood, when Republicans did share their wealth. When my Dad worked hard at his non-union job, helping the business owner towards greater profit, and was rewarded at the end of the year with his "profit sharing" check. That owner was a wealthy conservative businessman who would be appalled and insulted to be called a Marxist.

I wish every American could have a job and get a profit sharing check, loyally helping business to grow, rather than having to accept a government handout to stimulate the economy.

Yes, yes, I understand globalization...but even Friedman's insights into what globalization means to Americans are touted in MSM without his antidotes. No, those antidotes would be too progressive, a dirty word.

It is greed, pure and simple. Keep it all to myself. Or, I am afraid of losing it. So acting out of greed or fear is what will keep this great nation down. What was wrong when my Dad's conservative business owner did not act out of greed or fear? It seemed to work for him.


Americans are tired of business as usual.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by desert]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
FlyersFan, he is a link to Politifact. It's about Hillary Intel report.

www.politifact.com...

Now there is a difference between READING a REPORT and Being BRIEFED. Obviously, you like to READ (I can tell by READING your post) instead of just being BRIEFED on the TITLE of this post.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by rakillah]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
FlyersFan, "Do you realize that Al Qaeda and muslim extremists were attacking us and our interests LONG BEFORE we went into Iraq and Afghanistan? Remember 9/11? The USS Cole? The Embassy bombings? etc etc"

FlyersFan, you have to realize that for every action, there is a reaction. This hold true if you consider the fact DUE to the US Government's INTEREST in the OIL over there, and the CIA dealings with Bin Laden fighting the Russians. Remember, USA is not apart of OPEC, USA basically "had" the Middle East oil producing country by the balls by trading and all sales done in US dollars. Oh Yeah, By the way....The British government Built the OIL RIGS in the middle east when The British government, because of British businessman William D'Arcy, DISCOVERED OIL there around the 1901 and beyond, and USA goverment followed. THE MIDDLE EASTERNS DID NOT EVEN KNOW THEY WERE SITTING ON OIL...lol

[edit on 31-3-2008 by rakillah]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by rakillah
 


I'm not sure I can even justify continuing to debate with him. He clearly has no background of our actions in the Middle East. Anyone who actually believes we were attacked for our "freedoms" has really just bought into another buzz phrase, and a pretty lame on at that.

He has no idea that we have been occupying their lands, sanctioning them politically, aiding their enemies, and censoring both their education and media for years. Long before 9/11 occured, and long before Muslim Extremists were common knowledge.

These are the results of another country owning the depletable energy we need. i imagine if most oil reserves were in South America, we'd be occupying Peru, and headed for Chile.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
I'm not sure I can even justify continuing to debate with him.

Again - I'm a girl.



He clearly has no background of our actions in the Middle East.

Coming from you - that's beyond funny.



Anyone who actually believes we were attacked for our "freedoms" has really just bought into another buzz phrase, and a pretty lame on at that.

Anyone who refuses to understand the truth about radical islam - that we are ALL just infidels to kill - has really just bought into another left-wing PC buzz phrase, and an pretty lame one at that.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Yes, yes, I apologize. She*

Anyways, no, even CIA experts agree that Muslim Extremists attack us because of what we impose on them.

It was made clear by bin Laden. He always warns before he attacks, and he states clearly why he's attacking and what he wants to stop attacking.

Check out the book "Imperial Hubris". It was written by an ex-CIA expert on the Middle East.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by desert
15 gun control


Is this a selling point? I guess our forefathers were wrong about the right to bear arms as being unalienable. No, wait, they were right - and Obama is wrong.

Ron Paul anyone? Constitution = more important than rhetoric of "uniting the country".





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join