It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Barack Obama has an infantile mentality.

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I think it's a real picture. Is there something that shows it’s photoshop?


Hi sweetie.
I meant the phone picture. The smoking one is real. He smokes (unless he has quit)




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
SO Obama's a bad person because he's admitted to having done drugs during his college years, whoopy. At least he wasn't a pansy assed daddy's boy who while addicted to coc aine was dogging the draft while busily driving his dodge into a tree while drunk in the morning when nobody should be drunk, who's run into the ground every corporation he's ever touched including the USA and had no second thoughts about it.

No I'd rather have a honest president thats been in some of life's trenches with the rest of us, not some nepotonistic looser named George Bush the Dumb.

Also, Obama may be telling people to stick to debating him on his stances and not on his personal life, because it's against the rules of a debate because it proves very little. It's called ad hominem and it's a invalid form of debate. it's technically a form of logical fallacy. something a great deal of america has always had. pound for pound we don't have the brightest population in the world. Electing GWB proved what most of the world already suspected of us. If we vote in McCain god knows how blind and dumb the world will think we are then, unless our overall plan is to fool the world into believing that they all have some sort of advantage over the US's population intellectually.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by BASSPLYR]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I am "trying" you! o.O

He didn't say typical redneck or typical aristocrat, typical christion or typical ''insert social group here', he said, typical white person, you need to answer the question, stop dodging, he called out a race, not a social group, nice spin though.

He's not defining a race on a benign issue such as "good at athletics" or "like peanut butter and jelly sandwitches", he was defining a race on typical fear and racist intollerance, again, answer the question. Quit spinning it.

And your last answer didn't even address my question, how would the public react if McCain called a black person "a typical black person"?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I believe the Obama Campaign has spent around 51 million on marketing the man alone. That 51 million went a long way.

Change, well, what sort of change? Can any of the Obamamites answer that? How has Obama stood by reason when voting for the patriot act, or voting to further fund this war? Smoking, Drug usage, his skin color, all irrelevant issues when we have the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit testifying that Obama is not capable of ending, or even winning, this war on terror due to the simple fact that he hasn't got a clue as to root issues. This apparent when he throws his 'change line at supporters, then runs and hides hoping no one will ask him more indepth questions thereafter.

Character typology: we are so sick of Bush and cadres that the law of opposite attraction becomes a maxim in this election. How many Obamamites will vote for Obama simply to get rid of George Bush?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR

No I'd rather have a honest president thats been in some of life's trenches with the rest of us, not some nepotonistic looser named George Bush the Dumb.


Once again more proof that Obama supporters are incapable of defending him without invoking Bush.




Also, Obama may be telling people to stick to debating him on his stances and not on his personal life, because it's against the rules of a debate because it proves very little. It's called ad hominem and it's a invalid form of debate.


OMG.... this stuff should really be compiled and put into a book. Now we have a BO supporter saying that BO's personal values, beliefs, and history are off limits because it's "against the rules"???

You couldn't write this stuff. Obama already has this reputation as an intellectual snob who attracts other intellectual snobs, and now we get a real life example of somebody here on ATS saying it's "against the rules" to talk about BO's personal life.

What's next... are you going to start calling people who rat out Obama's dirty laundry "tattle-tales"?

Against the rules.... good grief.....



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


God forbid anyone try and debate him on the ISSUES! What is with you Repbublicans and the knit picky caracter attacks and smearing?

Just like with the new Scott McClellon Book. All the right wingers and talking heads on TV and in the press and from the White House (all reading from the same script) are saying "this isn't the same Scott we knew..." but nobody, I mean nobody, debates him on the actual issues he brings up.

It's the same thing by most posts by right wingers. Give me some actual issues, not something about their wife, or what someone at the church they go to said. This is distraction, and it's also meaningless. Been there, done that, every election year its the same from the Republicans...smear smear, mud sling, but light on the issues.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sheeper
He didn't say typical redneck or typical aristocrat, typical christion or typical ''insert social group here', he said, typical white person, you need to answer the question, stop dodging, he called out a race, not a social group, nice spin though.


What's the difference? What's the difference between a social group and a racial group?



He's not defining a race on a benign issue such as "good at athletics" or "like peanut butter and jelly sandwitches", he was defining a race on typical fear and racist intollerance, again, answer the question. Quit spinning it.


I answered your question. I'm not spinning anything. People of Obama's grandparents age were raised under a certain racial climate. To be talking about an OLD white person in a racial context and say that they are a typical white person makes COMPLETE sense to me. He goes on to say that we're moving through that mindset and we need to break through it, but he's just talking reality. My parents were the same way. They saw a black man and there was that twinge of "fear".



And your last answer didn't even address my question, how would the public react if McCain called a black person "a typical black person"?


They would be throwing a fit, much like the one thrown about Obama saying it. And I would be right here telling them to chill and listen to it in context, just as I am telling you to do

If you don't believe me, you don't know my history on this board.


God, there's a lot of new people on the board...



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
OK for a moment lets forget the Wright controversy, lets forget the proud of my country remark, lets forget his John Aires connection, lets forget him opening up diplomatic relations with Iran, Korea etc, and last but not least lets not even go into the whitey remark(some ppl may say this isnt true but there are 4 reliable sources that confirm they have seen it) and lets just try to forget those facts and focus on his political record. First of all he is lacking 10 years of life experience that most presidents have when taking office. He also is a Junior Senator with very littel experience, in fact he was out for 41 percent of the votes during this congressional session, thats missing 241 votes, what if you were absent from almost 50 percent of your job. projects.washingtonpost.com...
He voted against the ability of Congress to be given the authority to ban 'desecration of the American flag.'
He voted no on war funding bills for our GI's
I guess he forgot to vote on the Homeland Security Act that would have provided more security for the U.S and voted no to expand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act( we have seen this was a policy during the Clinton years that lead up to 9/11). These are just the ones he bothered to show up for.

Last but not least, B.O. is a democrat which is quite different from "Far Left" but he ranks in the top 5 most liberal or far left voting democrats. The American Democratic Party is not far left.....
A vot for Barrack Obama is a vote for John McCain



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Whats the diff? Well if he said, typical southern redneck living in the past, then it would make sense and he need not ball an entire race into this generalization, typical white people is most certainly not the same thing as calling out a social group, how could you not know the difference from a social group and a racial group?, "typical white people" encompasses all white people in Canada, USA, South America, Europe, Middle East, South Africa, Australia. You really really are spinning and you are ignorant.

*snip* you know dang well if McCain said the same thing, his chances for nomination would of been non existent and that is a double standard.

 
let's leave the personal attacks out of the argument, please.

Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory



[edit on 29-5-2008 by Jbird]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow
God forbid anyone try and debate him on the ISSUES!


Obama's personal character, his core values, his honesty, and his beliefs ARE issues.

See, anybody can say anything they want to sound good and to appease people. Some people call this pandering. When a person has no core beliefs, no core values, and is inherently dishonest and willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, that person is the one who makes the "issues" less important?

Why? Because they can never be trusted to follow through on what they tell you they will do.

Obama has already admitted to being inherently dishonest. So what's the point of debating his "plan" for Iraq or his "plan" for health care or his "plan" for lowering the price of gas when his "plans" are nothing but politically expedient fluff pieces meant to get him votes?

A great example is his flip-flop in 24 hours about Iran not being dangerous to Iran posing a grave danger. WTH was that?

That said, you tell me Obama's top 3 PLANS that are going to make the U.S. a better place.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jalien
He also is a Junior Senator with very littel experience, in fact he was out for 41 percent of the votes during this congressional session


Is this unusual? Just to compare to other Senators, McCain was out for 60%, Clinton was out for 31%. He's in the middle. And as far as having experience... I'm not so sure political experience is a good thing. With political experience seems to come corruption. I wouldn't mind seeing someone FRESH in the position.



He voted against the ability of Congress to be given the authority to ban 'desecration of the American flag.'


Good. It's free speech.



He voted no on war funding bills for our GI's


Do you have a link that I can read about this?



I guess he forgot to vote on the Homeland Security Act that would have provided more security for the U.S and voted no to expand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act


See? This is what I was saying before. These are political opinions that MANY people agree with. I agree with him (except for the GI bill, which I don't know the details on). This means you disagree with his politics. It doesn't mean there's something basically WRONG with the man. You just disagree with his politics. Get used to it. We've been living that hell for 8 years now. It sucks and I sympathize, but that doesn't mean Obama is evil.



Last but not least, B.O. is a democrat which is quite different from "Far Left" but he ranks in the top 5 most liberal or far left voting democrats. The American Democratic Party is not far left...


I don't see the relevance. We've tried a far right (neo-con) government for 8 years. And we see where that got us. I'd like to try something different. I think we NEED something different. I'm not far left, but I'm willing to give the guy a shot and see what he can do with this craphole that W has left.



A vot for Barrack Obama is a vote for John McCain


Hmmm... I don't understand that.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sos37
98% of the African Americans and some white folks want to hand over control of this country to a man based on his skin color.


Do you have a source on that? Or did you just make it up. That's what I thought.



Actually, I do. But I will give up some of that percentage to sensationalism.

www.gallup.com...

The latest data they have on key indicators was conducted Feb 21-24, 2008. At that time the percentage of Black voters favorable to Barack Obama was 75%

Now check the chart on the main page here:
www.gallup.com...

Since we don't have a recent key indicator poll we can extrapolate the numbers from the general preference by using ratios.

We know in Feb. 21-24 that 75% of Black voters favored Obama from chart 1. In Chart 2, that translates to about 49% of the Democratic vote. So if we look at the most recent data in chart 2 which says 52% of Democrats support Obama we can extrapolate a percentage.

49/75 as 52/x or 49 is to 75 as 52 is to x

49/75 = .6203 ; .6203 * 52 = 32.2556 or 32 since we're working with whole numbers in the ratios.

32 + 52 = 84 so our extrapolated number is 84%. We can check this percentage by division:

49/79 = .620253
84/52 = .619048 = pretty close so we can say the percentage is right at 84%. That is to say based on Gallup Poll data, 84% of Black Democrats favor Barack Obama.

Now I'll give you those 15 percentage points back due to sensationalism as I said, but tell me that 84% isn't a huge freakin number. I find it hard to believe that 84% of black Democrats favor Obama over Clinton based on politics alone. Clinton is by far the stronger candidate because of her education AND experience. The logical answer must be that this number is so high because of skin color.

And I would imagine that number goes even higher when we add in the Republican Black vote to the mix.




[edit on 29-5-2008 by sos37]

[edit on 29-5-2008 by sos37]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
I find it hard to believe that 84% of black Democrats favor Obama over Clinton based on politics alone.


And I suppose the women who support Hillary do so because she's a woman and white people who support John McCain do so because he's white? Is that how it works?

Unless you have a poll that asks black Obama supporters, "Why do you support Obama"? and 84% of them answer "Because he's black", you have no data. You're just speculating. You said:


Originally posted by sos37
98% of the African Americans and some white folks want to hand over control of this country to a man based on his skin color.


And you have no way of knowing that. Granted, there are probably some people, black and white, who will vote for him because he's black, but it's inaccurate (and worse) to assume that everyone who votes for him is doing so because of his race.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
If you've ever taken a debate class or a logic 101 course you'd know that ad hominem attacks are in fact against the rules in a civilized debate they don't prove much. Can't win a debate with an ad hominem attack either, just how it works sorry.

I agree that we should take his morals, and personal character in consideration when thinking about electing him for the top public office but his personal choices have paled in comparison to a lot of what mccain has done or anybody in office from his stance of politics.

No need to bring up Bush I'm sure there are plenty of things to go after in McCains personal life. I like the way he's busy attacking Obamas wife. Guess he was sick of verbally abusing his own wife (you know calling her a c--- to her face in public and things of that nature.) Mc Cain is known for being short tempered, and spineless simply going along with whatever pack was in power at the time. He's a lot like a dog that just wants to make his owners happy. He'll be the guy to loose his temper and launch an Ohio class boomers worth of nukes at somebody not Obama. People are really afraid of change in this country, we need to stop being a bunch of ignorant redneck yokels and admit that being an intellectual is a good thing when you're the president of the united states. being a dynamic speaker who seeks to develop report with adversaries is a good thing. Actually understanding the world around you is a good quality. or at least it is if you've ever studied tactical manuals and books on strategy, or if you agree with the basic tenants of books written by the likes of Sun Tzu and others.

He's much better than JFK IMHO. JFK although a great president was busy cheating left and right on his faithful wife, tag teaming starletts turning the white house into a psudo playboy mansion, pretty sure he was into drugs and all of his money came from his grand dad who made a fortune bootleging alcohol and poisoning half the US. now if a man who has all of those moral ambiguities can be a great president then I think Obama will be one too.

Also, McCain (bless him for serving in the US Military so people like me can have the freedom to speak freely, something he truly should be honored for) was tortured half way to death and more than has a 99% chance of being mentally not fit to be the most powerful man in the world, not by his own doing but by the unfortunant ramifications of being a mental and physically abused person during wartime. He's gotta have some severe PTS, I think it shows in his personality. he's not all there. and by no real fault of his own other than the fact that he was unlucky enough to be captured by the NVA. not all of those Vietnam vets were lucky enough to have John Norris and his sidekick Kiet to rescue them. McCain is just not fit to lead.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Lets look at the educational background and work history of this man being called infantile.

- A graduate of Columbia University
- A graduate of Harvard Law School
- A community organizer
- A university professor
- A lawyer
- Author of two books
- A U.S. Senator.

Not bad for an infantile mind. Of course none of this would guarantee he was an intelligent rational mind but I'm more inclined to believe he is at least above average in intelligence and ambition.

SO...I am assuming that those making the claim that his mind is infantile must have credentials that are equal to or greater than his own. I mean surely someone calling an accomplished man such as Obama an infant must have a resume that would make Obamas pale in comparison.

Otherwise they are just talking out of some dark irrational place in their own mind and the attack is juvenile and unjustified.

Would be just as ridiculous as me calling a Vet like John McCain a coward.
I may not agree with his policies or positions but I'm not out to make a fool of myself.

- Lee



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Good evening all,
I think the reason that Obama is so popular is because he comes off as the type of person that people can relate to. He is not the cookie cutter politician with the cliché blue suit, stiff hair cut and pre programmed responses.

Has he said and done some dumb things? Sure he has, but what politician hasn't? I am sure that I could find quotes by Reagan, Clinton, Ford, Carter both Bush's and even JFK that would be unflattering.

The difference is he admits his mistakes and moves on. He doesnt duck and dodge questions about mistakes and act like they never happened. Which is why he has earned my respect. Those who lie, cheat, send others into harms way and play loose with the truth are extremely dangerous and should not hold an office that is supposed to answer to the people.

I think most people place politicians on some sort of pedestal as if they are perfect people who have never done anything wrong or stupid in their lives. That is why I think so many of them hide things that are later found to embarrassing enough to make them leave office.

What is really disappointing is that there are some of you that think that white people are voting for him as some sort of guilt over slavery. Using that logic those same white folks should have voted for Jesse Jackson when he ran for president, right?. But that didn't happen because Jesse is an pompous overblown opportunist.

Maybe they are voting for Obama because they believe in what he is saying?



[edit on 29-5-2008 by MrMaze]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


All you did is make me think that he's a cool layed back guy, perfect for a president in a new world.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


What would you like,his racest wife,his drug induced gay trists,the fact he said he would remove the umbrella that would protect the US from nuke attact just to show the world how nice and trustworthy we are,or the fact he has not done a thing to convinces any one he will be a color blind prez.Compare OBAMA with Colen Powell and if that doesent make you realize how unqualifed OBAMA is I doubt anything will.This has nothing to do with race,it has to do with good and bad people.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrMaze
Good evening all,
I think the reason that Obama is so popular is because he comes off as the type of person that people can relate to. He is not the cookie cutter politician with the cliché blue suit, stiff hair cut and pre programmed responses.

Has he said and done some dumb things? Sure he has, but what politician hasn't? I am sure that I could find quotes by Reagan, Clinton, Ford, Carter both Bush's and even JFK that would be unflattering.


Good God... this is the same image Bush cultivated when he ran in 2000. I'm honestly starting to believe that the people who run the world are dusting off the 2000 playbook and giving us a liberal democrat wrapped in the same package as the conservative republican of 2000.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join