McCain Throws Temper Tantrum, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 26-5-2008 @ 02:25 AM by projectvxn

Originally posted by Sheeper
Well I was saying CCFR because thats the website and I never said she was a member of the CFR only pointing out the connections between the two groups, their is no reaching, because the implications are obvious, you are just being stubborn. And that is funny!

Go ahead and tell me what these profound implications are. How is Obama DIRECTLY involved. And please, do provide sources.

If you respond with more accusations without REAL substance, then you're just going to be like every other user who has come through here spouting this crap without any proof.

This game is getting seriously old. The CCFR has no connection to the New York branch of the CFR. It is an independent organization made of every spectrum of American politics. Membership is also open to pretty much anyone.

reply posted on 26-5-2008 @ 02:35 AM by Sheeper

Well that just comes down to opinion and I think yours stinks, see your problem is you can't and won't have any defimation what so ever of Obama, you want DIRECT involvement when what we are pointing at here is INDIRECT involvement, that is the point, I believe he is indirectly involved when you look at the big picture, but you think the fact that the two groups have the same directors and many of the same goals is purely coincidental, fine, your an easy person to fool is all I'm gonna say and if you don't mind, my opinion stands that their connections are nothing to be ignored so off handidly. Now you have made it abundantly clear that you are so very very stubborn and I really don't think your worth the debate, so have a good night.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by Sheeper]

reply posted on 26-5-2008 @ 06:44 AM by grover

I will say it again... I really don't think Obama's comment was either inflamatory, or really much of an attack and that McCain's response was... well a tantrum... the f--- comment proves that, and was totally unnecessary.

reply posted on 26-5-2008 @ 12:19 PM by projectvxn

reply to post by Sheeper

I haven't posited my opinion yet. (Funny you should say that). You still have not clearly made a case for your allegations. I again ask for your evidence and proof of indirect connections to WHAT EXACTLY.

You can argue Obama's record with me all you'd like. Please keep the personal crap to yourself.

reply posted on 26-5-2008 @ 11:48 PM by Santeria

Who cares about the CFR? Of course they endorse Obama. Their corporations still donate money to him. He was a speaker. Either way it doesn't matter. The provable evidence is much worse. How do you explain Zbigniew Brzezinski being one of his top advisers? That guy is CFR / Trilateral Commission all the way. He will steer Obama much the same way he did Jimmy Carter.

Like I said earlier... the corporations still donate to him just like they do Hillary and McCain. If Obama was "for real" about going after the evil corporations, I seriously doubt they would continue donating to his campaign. They didn't donate to Ron Paul like that. Look on the link below and you'll see all your familiar faces... Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan CHASE, etc etc... all donating to Obama in the 6 figures.

The Brzezinski proof
Obama's Top Contributors

Oh, and in case you don't know who Zbigniew Brzezinski is...

[edit on 5/26/2008 by Santeria]

reply posted on 27-5-2008 @ 01:31 AM by kyred

An interesting comment by McCain who receives 56,000 dollars a year in veterans benefits for being 100 percent disabled, but yet is able to hold down a full time job. I think McCain has lost sight of what our veterans deserve. And this is from a war veteran who is 100 percent disabled and can't hold a job for various reasons and doesn't even receive half of what McCain receives. And as a side note, I am familiar with a woman who is a Democrat who believes I receive too much for being a disabled veteran. So much for Democrat values and compassion.

reply posted on 27-5-2008 @ 07:19 AM by wytworm

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by wytworm

I think there was no impuignment of WW2 vets and the GI bill in Qxlb52's statement, only the concern that McCain and others make about the sweeping "carte-blanche" attraction of the bill that MIGHT tempt people into recruitment just for the pay. It appears that McCain and other vets are afraid this bill will create "mercenary class soldiers" and not true soldiers. We want tough fighting men for our country's defense and not a bunch of trigger-happy, disgruntled mercenaries for anyone who'll pay them enough.

And who's to say that gang bangers might not enlist just to sharpen their urban combat skills before taking the money and running? Another justifiable fear.

No I think Qxlb52's statement impuigned nobody, bit did warn of the fears many active, reserve, and veteran soldiers have.

Of course it did. His premise is, if there is a benefit for any vet for having served, it means they 'did it for the money'. The notion is as idiotic as it is unpatriotic. I can see how you would want to position t that way, though as it makes that whole argument seem ridiculous.

Again, we already pay soldiers and have achieved the effect you describe. Its called Blackwater. Go ahead and cut soldier pay, remove VA funding and yank the GI Bill, just don't try to claim the moral high ground as you do it...Its absurd...

reply posted on 27-5-2008 @ 08:30 PM by canadianbadboy

Do you really believe that which ever one you elect will make that much of a difference?

reply posted on 27-5-2008 @ 09:42 PM by wytworm

Originally posted by canadianbadboy
Do you really believe that which ever one you elect will make that much of a difference?

Yes

reply posted on 27-5-2008 @ 09:46 PM by jimbo999

Originally posted by grover

Do we really want someone with this kind of hair trigger near the oval office and red buttons?

www.alternet.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Nope, not really.

The guy sounds more than a bit unstable..

J.

reply posted on 27-5-2008 @ 10:14 PM by Anonymous ATS

reply posted on 27-5-2008 @ 10:26 PM by Anonymous ATS

Why are you all only talking about three candidates?
You should do some research into the fourth, you won't find his face on CNN.com's politics main page but if you click on the candidates, you will see his face. He is the only one they used a picture of him NOT smiling. Hmmm.

reply posted on 27-5-2008 @ 10:32 PM by projectvxn

reply to post by Santeria

Ok, the rense.com article is NOT an article it is an opinion piece filled with slant and accusations with no proof. The Newsweek article is also an opinion piece and hardly implicates Obama in anything. Obama needs a team of foreign policy experts, otherwise who is going to advise him on foreign policy issues? Secondly, all of these people are Clinton break-aways who don't want anything to do with that style of dynastic politics. Thirdly, the article implicated a CFR effort to campaign against Obama. So far I've heard so many accusation, and by your own articles have damned your positions to the pit of unsubstantiated rumors that the far right has been trying to push about Obama. Capitalizing on the conspiracy theory crowd as well, knowing that these people, at the drop of a dime(or in this case the name CFR) will stop listening and start accusing without review.

You can't just accuse someone of something through an association(no matter how tight or loose) unless you know how far that relation goes and whether there really are implications to worry about. So far none of you have given me squat resembling fact. You read an article or OP-ED piece and parade it around as fact without checking these claims. This is the internet, please be more scrutinizing of the information your put your trust in.

reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 03:08 PM by Santeria

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Santeria

Ok, the rense.com article is NOT an article it is an opinion piece filled with slant and accusations with no proof. The Newsweek article is also an opinion piece and hardly implicates Obama in anything. Obama needs a team of foreign policy experts, otherwise who is going to advise him on foreign policy issues? Secondly, all of these people are Clinton break-aways who don't want anything to do with that style of dynastic politics. Thirdly, the article implicated a CFR effort to campaign against Obama. So far I've heard so many accusation, and by your own articles have damned your positions to the pit of unsubstantiated rumors that the far right has been trying to push about Obama. Capitalizing on the conspiracy theory crowd as well, knowing that these people, at the drop of a dime(or in this case the name CFR) will stop listening and start accusing without review.

You can't just accuse someone of something through an association(no matter how tight or loose) unless you know how far that relation goes and whether there really are implications to worry about. So far none of you have given me squat resembling fact. You read an article or OP-ED piece and parade it around as fact without checking these claims. This is the internet, please be more scrutinizing of the information your put your trust in.

You didn't answer the questions...

Why do the corporations still support Obama and donate large amounts of money to him?

Why is Zbigniew Brzezinski a senior member of Obama's staff?

Say what you want about the rense article, it is irrelevant anyway. The Newsweek article is hardly an opinion piece, and the author isn't a right wing guy at all (read his bio). The Newsweek article simply proves that Brzezinski is a senior member of the Obama's staff. Brzezinski's made his views quite clear in his book.

[edit on 5/31/2008 by Santeria]

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^