That's It!!! This Anti-Obama Propaganda Has Got To Stop

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by dawnstar

 

There you go, the American way of thinking /sarcasm

GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION!!! Thank you for proving my point more so as to what it originally was. Look at what his former pastor says and not the real issues.

From my understanding this pastor has been known for saying things of this nature and being a bit controversial. This man is suppose to be Obama's mentor? if Obama has spent so many years looking up to this man and being a part of his parish what does that say for Obama? To me it says that Obama must agree with the pastor to some degree. And that to me is an important issue. I feel the only reason Obama distanced and denounced the pastor was because it didn't do good things for his image. While I think Clinton is the worst of the three at least she doesn't try to hide the fact she's a liar. That or she's just really bad at hiding it. McCain seems to be just plain evil to me, as well as the other two.

I've looked at Obama's voting record.Not much to be said for it. And yes to me someone wanting to be president of this country and won't cover his heart or recite the pledge to the flag is a VERY important issue.Did you know your precious Obama took payoffs from slumlords to keep him from making them clean up and repair their properties? Wish I could find the link for that now.I'll dig around and see if I can.

And I'll use Obama goggles also because it seems like all Obama supporters thinks his poop doesn't stink.

You're looking for the Rezko scandal. Don't think the Republicans aren't going to trot that out later. They're just waiting for the race to actually begin.

But hey. All anti-Obama facts are pure propaganda on level with claims he's the antichrist or Hitler. And he does want "change." So we'll look past it...

The other two are almost as unpalatable, but I didn't see people start a "this Anti-Clinton Progaganda has got to stop" thread calling all criticism irrelevant or I'd be there too (McCain, I'm looking at you too).



[edit on 4-5-2008 by _Del_]

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


Yeah, I can see why people might think that, but if the man gives 5 sermons per day, I think it's a little short-sighted to assume that the snippets we see in the news are the ones which reflect Obama's views, when it could be 20 years worth of stuff also.

reply to post by _Del_


You need to go back and read the thread.

Originally posted by _Del_
You're looking for the Rezko scandal. Don't think the Republicans aren't going to trot that out later. They're just waiting for the race to actually begin.

But hey. All anti-Obama facts are pure propaganda on level with claims he's the antichrist or Hitler. So we'll look past it...

Thank you! I was having trouble remembering the Rezko name. Here's one link for it.

Obama took over 100,000 in campaign contributions from Rezko. yes he gave about 46,000 to charity but it's still shady dealings in my book. But I don't just pick on Obama. I hate Clinton and McCain just as much.

reply to post by bigbert81


I agree with what you're saying and see where you're coming from. But, to me Obama had to know the views and stances the pastor had/has. And knowing that and staying so close to the man and being a member of his parish for so long makes me believe Obama must feel the same way. I'll admit I don't follow Obama much and am not aware of everything the man stands for and doesn't stand for. To me he is just a man with a lust for the most powerful seat in the U.S. and like every other candidate we are being forced to consider he'll lie,cheat,and steal to get there.

Here is clear example of the difference in which the press covers Obama and Clinton.

Todays titles from the NYTimes.

"In Poll, Obama Survives Furor, but Fall Is the Test"

Ra Ra Ra, go Obama go, might as well be the articles title.

Then the article on Hillary

"Seeing Grit and Ruthlessness in Clinton’s Love of the Fight"

Ruthlessness, why don't they call her Hilltilla the Hun.

I am personally disgusted with the parade of blatant propaganda thrown at the Clintons on a daily basis.

And the Obama supporters think they have something to whine about. The Clintons are the only good thing that has happened to the democratic party since RFK. The people writing this garbage suck, and so does the NY Times for putting out this propaganda garbage. This is a clear example of the class warfare liberal elites are fighting. They are all a bunch of morons. Kiss the democratic party goodbye, because after this election cycle, the elites are going to be the only people left.

Anybody who has bothered to read this thread knows the score, and it is way against Obama. Yet the people who support Obama continue to claim that there is no legitimacy to the negatives that are brought up about Obama. Wake up and smell the coffee.

reply to post by bigbert81


This is a reply to the OP on a post from pg 4.

It might be off topic...

My biggest gripe about Rev. Wright and Obama, is that Obama has not distanced himself from him. Some of the 'core' views of Rev. Wright, personaly, to me are very disturbing. Some of the other people that Obama surrounds himself with are also questionable....

The whole reason that Obama is getting more flack then Hilliary is because we have known this about Clinton for years, and Obama is the unknown subject...

And i would say that when you are between the ages 6-10, that is one of the most influenceial periods in your life. Its a good idea to not have anything 'crazy' happen in this age...


Basicly here, we have to establish that when you are running for office, EVERYTHING about you IS fair game. You have to deal with it. We should be alloud to ask any question we want, not that you have to answer, but it will be shown that you didnt answer.

Asling questions about someone and their history should not be taboo in a ellection...

reply to post by poet1b


Thank you for reading the thread, this is the most on-topic reply I've gotten.

Yes, there is a lot of propaganda being swung at both ends here, but from what I've seen (and I see a lot), the media spends 90% of it bashing Obama/his acquaintances, 8% on Hillary, and 2% on McCain/other issues.

Also, when they DO bring up examples like the sniper fire incident, that seems to me to be much more valid (outright lying/misleading) than what Obama's former pastor has been doing, mainly because it came straight from the horse's mouth, while it's nothing more than speculation about what Obama believes.

reply to post by TKainZero

The whole reason that Obama is getting more flack then Hilliary is because we have known this about Clinton for years, and Obama is the unknown subject...

That's a good point you bring up.

And I think that calling the specific years 6-10 the most influential is a bit unfair. Up until age 6, people are like sponges, then the rest is just learning. People wise up and learn more and more, so discounting the 20 faithful years he's had at this church, getting married there, and getting his children baptised there, I think, are being much too easily overlooked by several people on this thread.

I really believe that Obama played this hand correctly, at least he's done the same as I would have. He made it clear that he does not share those views, but after being friends for over 20 years, I can see why it would be hard to distance yourself right away. Now of course, we have the NAACP stuff too.

[edit on 5/5/2008 by bigbert81]

reply to post by bigbert81


Ohoooooooo, so you want the thread to die now?
You started this thread but it seems to me when the going gets rough you want the thread to die!

Maybe its because you KNOW some people are telling the truth about Obama.........or maybe the truth hurts .........

reply to post by MagicaRose


Ugggggh.

Are you really that daft?

People like you miss the whole point of the thread, and then all of a sudden 'I can't take it'.

Please, think before you speak.

In fact, several people have come on here without any understanding of why I started this thread, and then using completely pointless, irrelevant arguments, and then getting ignorant people *cough cough* to join the witch hunt and speak without thinking or reading.

You people are hunting rabbit in a hen house.






[edit on 5/5/2008 by bigbert81]

By the way, do you work for Obama?

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen 'cough' 'cough'..........

reply to post by MagicaRose


Another GENIUS remark.

*Applause*

Well done.

Like I said before, think before you speak.

You have missed, not only the point of the thread judging by your last ridiculous post, but my last post as well. tsk tsk. Yeah, not quite the sharpest tool in the shed, are you...?




[edit on 5/5/2008 by bigbert81]

I would say that about 90% or more of the media coverage on Hillary is negative. Often the propagandist pretends to be writing something favorable about Hillary, but most if is is negative and attempts to lead to a negative conclusion.

Meanwhile, most of what I read on Obama spends most of the ink making excuses for Obama, and downplaying the very negative things about Obama.

Just because Hillary got a story wrong on her trip to Serbia, doesn't mean she is an outright liar. People make mistakes. The sniper fire story is not nearly as big of a whopper as Obama's statements about his religious beliefs and training, and his pastor. Obama's lies are far bigger, and say much worse things about his character.

I have to agree. There are many large NWO corporations behind Obama in getting the Presidency such as Ford and Citibank.

Not to mention, China and the Middle East want him too. They know they'll get their way and then some with America with little or no resistance.

China has large investements in CNN and Google, so keep in mind, these will be biased towards anyone not Obama.

Also, when doing searches on China with Google, use Yahoo instead. Google sensors searches for China here in the US.

reply to post by poet1b


How do you mean?

While I would agree with most of the coverage is negative when they DO talk about her (except for recently, all they talk about is that 'she is a fighter'), are you also referring to amount of media coverage? Because that one I wouldn't really agree with. I think the media covers Obama much, much more from what I've seen.

reply to post by jetxnet


See, here's where I kind of get away from you. While I do believe in NWO stuff, I figure that if they really wanted someone, they would win and we wouldn't have a chance to vote, so I guess I have to act under the illusion that it might all be bogus, so I like that Obama seems to me to be the best candidate because of the illusion I have to assume.

I hope that makes sense.

I don't watch network news, every time I do, I get disgusted by the blatant twisting of the facts to represent the agenda of the people behind the scenes manipulating the news. Almost all of my news I get from the internet, where I can research things from several sources and get a fairly legitimate idea of what is going on.

The few times I have watched network news, it seemed to me that Obama was getting a free ride, as if he was a republican. I imagine that now that Obama almost has the nom almost wrapped up, the way that the news media portrays him is beginning to change. They are eager to smear him, I bet, but can't get too heavy on him too soon, or Hillary might succeed in pulling out a victory and taking the nom.

The news media isn't portraying Hillary as a fighter, that is the image she is going for, the media is trying to make her look ruthless, and Obama is helping them at every chance.

Hey, you think Obama is getting a raw deal now, wait and see what happens if he gets the nom.

As far as the NWO concept goes, I don't think any single group has enough advantage to pull the whole thing off. Threre are many powerful groups trying for a world power grab, but none of them have yet to develop that kind of power. I would say international corporations with the WTO are the ones closest, but even their power is limited. They can't actually choose the president, only try to get the candidate they would prefer, or at least tip the odds in favor of the one that they think would be less damaging to them.

What I can't figure out is, who would the IC's prefer, McCain or Obama. McCain is for the things that the IC's are for, but McCain would probably be a stern task manager, and start doing something radical like enforcing the laws against white collar crime, and that really scares them. Obama would go straight for the welfare state, but he would be easy to marginalize, and with the state of the current economy, they would let the house of cards collapse, and blame it all on Obama, while praising GW.

Hillary scares the IC's more than anything. The Clintons have been there before, and will be the ones best able to seize control from the IC's, and create a system that works as it should. If the middle class were to be given a fair chance once again, we could completely reverse the terrible effects of Reaganomics and the vast accumulation of wealth, and therefore power, into the hands of fewer and fewer.

I predict it will turn ugly after Clinton declares that she's substantially winning the popular vote when you include the states that moved their primaries. Her argument will be that she has momentum, Obama is slumping and beginning to look less viable, and that the votes of millions of people in the disputed states should count. Obama will say he has the number of delegates from the other states on his side -- THEN it becomes a question of the Rules and Bylaws committee on whether or not to force the seating of the delegates from those states. If she has enough support on the Rules and Bylaws committee, and they do reinstate those delegates she's winning in the delegate count by several dozen.
This probably destroys the party from within. Either way the Republicans seem to have a cake walk toward the office in Nov.