 |
reply posted on 10-5-2008 @ 07:48 PM by bigbert81
|
reply to post by Rubyteacup
Ruby, thanks for the input, but the whole point of this thread was to point out that the anti-Obama stuff going on out there is crap compared to what
his opponents have been doing.
BTW, propaganda isn't just untrue information, which a lot of people seem to think. Propaganda was an appropriate term for the stuff I listed in the
OP.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 10-5-2008 @ 08:11 PM by MagicaRose
|
reply to post by bigbert81
Is that all you can call people that disagree with you?
I can say one thing about you "you are one talking machine"!
It's plain to see why you have so many points.
Why don't YOU run for president "genuis" ?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 10-5-2008 @ 08:15 PM by bigbert81
|
reply to post by MagicaRose
*Applause*
Well said. Pointless though.
Thanks for chiming in and making this thread that much more valuable.
And I have been thinking about getting into politics actually. Good call.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 08:52 AM by FlyersFan
|
Originally posted by bigbert81
Because he has several 'present' votes, you're assuming he hasn't passed any legislation? 
 YOU are assuming I said that. I didn't. And he voted 'present' more than just 'several' times. It was 130 times that he voted
‘present’ on important issues while in the state senate. He can’t ‘change’ things when he votes like
that .
Obama got these passed in the three years he has been in Washington –
The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency act of 2006
The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Conventional Weapons Reduction Act.
Those are the ‘for sures’. Have any more PASSED? And if any did, does that wipe out the 130 'present' votes he made? YOU might think it does,
but I don't think so.
 Don't you know what assuming does? 
You mean like you just did Berti?
 don't you think that your 'experience' argument has just become a moot point? 
Hell no. Experience is vital. Obama is right about not cutting the gas tax. But of course .. he was FOR cutting it a few years back. He's pulling
a Kerry-esque flip flop. Voting for it before voting against it.
In 2000 as a state senator, Obama voted for a six-month 5 percent gas tax holiday. Obama voted for Senate Bill 1310, which reduced the state's sales
tax on gasoline from 6.25 percent to 1.25 percent for six months. It passed 50-0, with six senators voting present.
Obama even joked that he wanted signs in his district to say "Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices."
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 10:22 AM by SpartanKingLeonidas
|

Take Off Your Shoes To Count
Any candidate right now is easy to pick on but some more so than usual. On this thread Obama say he's been to 57 states. Since when does the United
States have 57 states? Um, can anyone say before you're My President you need to know how to count? That's scary coming from the potential man who
will have the power to push the nuclear strike button.
Obama video claiming he has been to 57 states
I've made mistakes, yeah that's for sure, I've made mistakes talking to people, yup, I've made mistakes speaking in front of multiple people, but
not to this degree nor in an important mater like this, nor was I trying to go for this agenda. It doesn't matter how tired the man is or if he was
reading off cue cards, it's important to know how many states are within your country kind of like Dan Quayle not knowing how to spell potato. The
countries people lost confidence in your if you can not count or even if it sounds like you're counting that there are more states than the country
has you might have a hidden agenda to add more somewhere else.
Oh yeah, not knowing the content of the pastor's speeches or his values or even choice of words that you have been a follower of for twenty years?
Come on now, are the US citizens that gullible? I'd sure as Hell like to think not.
[edit on 11-5-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 10:58 AM by bigbert81
|
reply to post by FlyersFan
YOU are assuming I said that. I didn't.

Are you kidding me? I see what you're doing, you get caught in something, and then you try to flip it around on someone else. Well, you've been
caught. I spoke about the legislation Obama has passed, and you rode it off on 'present' votes, and now I'M the one assuming?
Like I said, you've been caught.
Hell no. Experience is vital. Obama is right about not cutting the gas tax. But of course .. he was FOR cutting it a few years back. He's pulling a
Kerry-esque flip flop. Voting for it before voting against it.

And this quote just goes to show me that you have not done your homework like you would like others to believe. Obama DID vote for it at one time,
and it didn't go as he had expected, therefore, he now knows better. And he's said this many times that it turned out to be a mistake.
But you try to make that look like a bad thing. You know, I think YOU'RE the one with the Obama goggles on here, they're just on backwards.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 11:02 AM by bigbert81
|
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
Dude, I think you're blowing this WAAAAAAYYYY out of proportion.
Forgetting the fact that he's been campaigning constantly, and we don't know what he was doing right before, how much sleep he had just had,
anything else that could cause someone to slip-up, this is just a slip-up. A mistake. He didn't forget how many states there were, he mispoke.
You and someone else are considering the absolutely worst scenario, pushed to an even worse extreme. It's not realistic.
[edit on 5/11/2008 by bigbert81]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 12:03 PM by FlyersFan
|
Originally posted by bigbert81
you've been caught. 
 I've been caught EXPOSING Obama. Yep. Definately. Exposing his lies and his shortcomings. Oh .. and I just got caught CATCHING YOU berti
... As i said - Obama didn't vote present just 'several times' as you claimed .. but 130 times.
That's 127 more than just 'several'.
Taking cues from Obammesiah and trying to mislead, eh?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 12:09 PM by bigbert81
|
reply to post by FlyersFan
Yeah, you've got it alright.
And there you go again, using the whole 'laugh in my face' icon over and over and over again, even though you're the one who just doesn't seem to
get it.
Perhaps you could, at the very least, start being more original?
And here's something I thought you might benefit from:
several
adjective
1. (used with count nouns) of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many; "several letters came in the mail"; "several people were injured
in the accident"

Your games are getting old, and I've already called you out on them, but apparently your brain is not allowing you to stray from them.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 12:15 PM by FlyersFan
|
Originally posted by bigbert81
Perhaps you could, at the very least, start being more original? 
Off topic personal remark.
several - ber more than 2 or 3 but not many; " 
Thanks!! Definately backs up what I said. 130 is MUCH MORE than just 'several' as you tried to mislead people with.
 Your games are getting old, 
Off topic personal remark.
And once again - I'm exposing Obama with FACTS.
HE is the one playing games - playing games with the American people.
 and I've already called you out on them, 
Yes .. you certainly do whine a whoooooooooole lot when Obama is exposed.
 but apparently your brain is not allowing you to stray from them. 
 another off topic personal remark.
Oh .. and Say hi to the next First Lady .
An eyeopening article on her highness here /
[edit on 5/11/2008 by FlyersFan]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 12:22 PM by bigbert81
|
reply to post by FlyersFan
It's not off topic when you consistently use what I was referring to to make your points. Try and think about that. In fact, it's very on-topic,
because you are relying on overusing these as an insult in your posts. Quit trying to make it seem as though you are taking the high road, when you
are the one dragging it through the mud.
And in the definition, it says 'indefinite number', but who was I kidding expecting you to be able to catch that? Here, try this...IT'S A RELATIVE
TERM!!!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 12:26 PM by FlyersFan
|
Originally posted by bigbert81
It's not off topic when you consistently use what I was referring to to make your points. 
It's not my fault that you make 'points' that don't turn out to be true.
I'll use any fact that I darn well like.
Obama supplies PLENTY of facts that show he isn't POTUS material.
Blame him .. not me.
 Quit trying to make it seem as though you are taking the high road, 
I post facts. You don't like them and whine. Again ... not my problem.
 it says 'indefinite number', 
It said - more than 2 or 3 but NOT MANY. 130 'present votes' is A LOT!
 who was I kidding expecting you to be able to catch that? 
Off topic personal remark. (again)
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 12:35 PM by bigbert81
|
reply to post by FlyersFan
It's not my fault that you make 'points' that don't turn out to be true.
I'll use any fact that I darn well like.

Wow, I feel like I'm talking to a wall. You just don't get it, do you? Do you have any idea what I'm talking about here, or are you just arguing
to argue?
It said - more than 2 or 3 but NOT MANY. 130 'present votes' is A LOT!

Well, let's see here, you've apparently missed the whole 'RELATIVE TERM' part of my post, so there it is again.
Also, you said that 3 votes was several, so I've also just shown you a contradiction in your posts. There you go, see, I read YOUR posts.
Off topic personal remark. (again)

Like I've said already, if you knew what I was already referring to (which after your last post, it's clear you don't), you would understand how it
IS on topic when you use them over and over again to make your points.
And don't try to twist this around again and make it seem like when I say 'them', I'm referring to 'facts'. Just another game of yours.
Now, let me guess, because I said 'another game of yours', you're going to call that 'another personal, off topic comment', well let me tell you
to read this post again and again until you understand what I'm saying, because I'm starting to feel that I'm having to repeat myself here.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 03:15 PM by Rubyteacup
|
How can Senator Obama be a devout Christian of 20 years if he took his oath of office with his hand on the Koran, rather than the Bible?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 05:09 PM by bigbert81
|
reply to post by Rubyteacup
Please cite your sources for this.
I haven't heard that before.
Not that it would still matter at all, but I would still like to see your sources.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 05:21 PM by Rubyteacup
|
Bigbert,
I was posing a question to everyone not specifically to you. There has been a lot of talk of it. I did investigate it on my own. I don't have the
links to the sources but the reality is, is that Senator Obama did not use the Koran in his oath for office.
Obama used his own Bible that his wife held as he pledged.
Apparently, even the media got things mixed up but it was clarified that Congressman (D-MN) Keith Ellison used the Koran when he took office.
With that said, here is a youtube video:
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-5-2008 @ 10:42 AM by bigbert81
|
Hey Ruby, you might want to try and embed the video again or provide a link, although I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with it.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |