Obama is better choice for commander in chief, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 2-11-2008 @ 02:05 PM by Anonymous ATS
how realistic is you!!!
I hear people on here saying Obama or mccain are the best choice lol!!! Well I don't know about Obama (then again no one really does know about Obama) But has everyone just plain forgot about the MCCain Feingold fiasco? Or the Savings and Loan Scandals? how about the fact that MCCain among other insiders was responsible for the current economic climate were in? Nevermind the fact that as a POW he was a traitor to the US. or that he was born in Panama when Panama was not an ally nor a Satellite of the US.
Those of you thinking that Im an Obama fan well..... Think again!!! First of all his name isnt Barrack Hussein Obama. 2.bp.blogspot.com... /AAAAAAAAAwU/RMOmNHPhWFk/s400/registration.jpg He was a junior senator in Illinois and therfor has done absolutely nothing in the senate. Though being a muslim isnt necessarily a bad thing lying about it to get votes certainly is. In the true reality we should be asking ourselves why did they give us 2 candidates who probably were not born in the US, one of which has terminal skin cancer and the other extremely inexperienced in any executive level (his wife has more executive experience then he does) What I find amazing is all the hoopla over Obama when no one and I mean no one knows anything about him or the change he is offering. one thing is for sure: when Mccain says obama is pushing socialism he is right however Mccain is doing the exact same thing.



reply posted on 2-11-2008 @ 02:12 PM by TheRandom1
reply to post by Solo954


Dude, Obama is just another gov Shill, both of the two party candidates are.

Obama is part of the CFR (Council on Foriegn Relations).

Why is that bad? Well, for one, they are globalists, you know NWO types?:



And here he is LYING about his CFR membership and ridiculing those who've brought news of the NAU into the public:



CFR sets up NAU on Lou Dobbs:



The CFR is bad, anyone associated with them, lies about being associated with them are crooks.

-Lahara


reply posted on 2-11-2008 @ 03:32 PM by grover
reply to post by Solo954


I didn't bother watching it. I will say this however...

Obama sure can talk well. And if you can talk well you can persuade and if you can persuade then you can govern because a huge amount of governing is persuading people to do what you want, whether that is the voters or congress. You can govern by bullying and you can govern by persuasion and generally you get more done through persuasion.

Its one thing to lead a squadron with the full force of the Military code of justice behind you... leading a nation (or congress) is much more like herding cats. Ya gotta convince them that they want to do what you want.


reply posted on 2-11-2008 @ 07:08 PM by grover
reply to post by deathhasnosound


Thanks... I've watched cspan and it is the most coma inducing thing that I have ever encountered... kinda like drugs without the high.

LBJ was great at squeezing peoples gonads to get what he wanted... Nixon threatened and I get the impression that Clinton smooth talked em but my impression is that Obama will probably engage his opponents in such a way that they will end up doing what he wants and think it was their idea.


reply posted on 3-11-2008 @ 07:39 AM by Open_Minded Skeptic
reply to post by FlyersFan


Hogwash. There is no credible linkage between Chamberlain's approach and Obama's.

The willingness to talk to adversaries is a sign of strength. Any blowhard dimwit can strut around with his chest all puffed out and achieve nothing of value.

Obama has shown by his response to the various slimes and smears during the campaign that he is a man of determination and strength - support him or not. He is more than willing to take on foes as appropriate, and I'm sure will engage militarily when and if it is necessary. And more importantly, not unless it is necessary. Although that last remains to be seen.

Having the internal confidence to be willing to talk first is the hallmark of true leadership, as opposed to buffoonery.

The Bush approach is that of the arrogant bully... it may, and often does, work or appear to in the short term, but is a long term disaster.

Obama's approach, as seen so far, is that of confidence. It may not satisfy the testosterone-laden in the short term, but has greater benefit for the country as a whole in the long term.

Me, I'm in favor of the long term.


reply posted on 3-11-2008 @ 10:57 AM by Solo954
reply to post by TheRandom1


This is real good piece of evidence. Thank you for gathering that information to our attention. However I see the NWO as nothing we Americans can do about. Its a prophesy waiting to be fulfilled. On the other hand if we were to stand up against big brother, we would also need to establish a movement from Mexico to Canada, and whose not to say the NAU would already be established (If not established already) before this movement would come into effect. This is part of the reason why I'm not voting. But take into consideration some countries will probably not find this stunt in their interest, so we would still need an effective CinC to atleast protect the stolen goods.



Edit - To add video

[edit on 3-11-2008 by Solo954]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Fox News Drops The Ball On Its Focus Group - Ron Paul Supporters!
  Posted 14 days ago with 43 member flags
Obama Supporters...Remember This List When You Vote This Year.
  Posted 13 days ago with 35 member flags
26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying
  Posted 5 days ago with 27 member flags
What\'s With The Obama Love on ATS Today?
  Posted 16 days ago with 25 member flags
Obama and why he\'ll still be president...
  Posted 18 days ago with 24 member flags