See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: An Open Letter to the Obamophobes
Source:
Me
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 4, 2008
Author: Me, Me, Me
Post Date: 2008-05-04 19:22:53 by a vast rightwing conspirator
Keywords: None
Views: 3797
Comments: 154
I keep hearing from a number of thoughtful and well-meaning members of this forum statements such as this one: "most Os have yet to put together a rational argument for his candidacy, save white guilt." I am not going to comment on the honesty of the charge but I am going to address it. It should settle the issue definitively and it should turn all rational and America-loving Obamophobes into enthusiastic supporters of Dr. Barack. If you (and it's a generic 'you') insist on being so intellectually lazy or derelict as to being unable or unwilling to see any difference between the three of them, that's the way you see things or rather imagine them and I am unable to cure or even treat your intellectual laziness or dereliction. I shall point out to you that even Dr. Paul saw a difference between the 3 and expressed a preference for Dr. Obama but you showed extreme obtuseness, dogmatism, lack of imagination and an inability to accept facts on a recent thread discussing that topic. Some of you or rather all of you (still that generic 'you') keep throwing the "there's not one dime worth of difference between the three" argument - never backed with facts of any kind - to which I reply: remove the dogmatic blinders and look around. Yes, Dr. O is a bit of a socialist because he is a Democrat but, remember, presidents don't get to appropriate one dime, it's the congress that appropriates funds and there will be no expansion of socialism unless the congress funds it. However, presidents do have the power to bring our troops back home and avoid wasting trillions on ruinous military adventures. It is likely that Dr. O would ease our foreign wars burden if elected president, even Dr. Paul admits it. So, help save America. Help Obama defeat Hillary and politically slay the odious McCain so that the American dreams don't die yet. There's trillions of dollars worth of difference between them. And, if you are concerned about socialist spending, help elect fiscally conservative reps and senators.
My friend, the rationale has been provided to you, more than once: the alternatives to Dr. O are either Hillary or McCain. We can hardly afford one of the 2 in the White House.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
So, I'm still not going to vote for McHillobama.
We should all follow our consciousness and we should all be prepared to live with the consequences of our deeds.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Nor will I. No way, no how, not now, not ever. I have never voted for any statist whore and don't plan to start now.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. No problem there. I keep an eye on those in my state legislature and keep track of what they do. They hear from me and my friends on a regular basis. I think that is more important anyway.
Exactly! They really are all the same. The policies that come down the pike will all lead in the same direction with the same results.
I agree. If the federal executive could be confined to the powers and the responsibilities that the constitution assigns to it, the identity of the U.S. president would be largely irrelevant.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
But they are not. Neither are the courts or the legislature for that matter. The puppet masters have given us a choice of candidates they find acceptable. All the policies will be the same no matter what. I'm refusing to play their game. I don't believe it is wasting my vote either since it doesn't matter ultimately who gets elected. Things will only change when enough people stop voting or start voting third party.
Or take a lesson from the founders and say enough is enough. And they would have said it a long time ago.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Explain to me how the above differs from the neo-con agenda. America has made her choice. Ineffective action over concrete results so that people can delude themselves into thinking they are making a difference without having to put any real effort into it. Peace? As the Germans said: "Enjoy the war. The peace will be terrible."
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
O'filterer
The 3 Stooges were funny, but I don't want to be FORCED to choose one of them to be president. And what we have here are 3 not-so-funny 3 Stooges. Not that our votes mean anything...That is the conclusion some of us have come to anyway. If people had a choice between Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, who would you vote for? It's the same thing with this (s)election. We have been given (supposedly) 3 "choices", all figureheads and none of which are any good. So it should hardly be surprising that those of us that feel this way will sit this one out, because we don't have a dog in this fight, and frankly it sucks to hope I choose to support the lesser of three evils. Evidently, you have a lot of faith in Obama. I cannot fault you for that, really. You're going to do what you are going to do, regardless of what anyone says. I had faith in Reagan. I learned. I had no faith in Poppy Bush or shrub, or Klinton, and I was not disappointed. Now I don't trust any of them to give me the right time of day.
------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------
That one started a conversation that led to an Obamaconner putting me on filter...
Really? Great minds think alike ;) I tend to stay out of the political threads, and I didnt read that one.
------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------
suuure
As I explained, we are facing cases of intellectual laziness or dereliction. There are 3 individuals attempting to get the job of US president. They are different and they are likely to act differently, once elected. 2 of them are terrible, the third may be a small positive over what we have now. Between Hitler, Stalin and Mao... as US presidents? I would eliminate Stalin. Between Hitler and Mao... I'd probably pick Mao. You DO realize that the 3 are 3 VERY different people, don't you?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Please name for me what Obama or his Party represent that places America first.
suuure If, knowing what is known, one claims that there is not one dime worth of difference between the 3 then, I am sorry, but the 'intellectual laziness or dereliction' diagnostic seems to apply. By the way it's impossible to prove the 'not one dime worth of difference' statement to be true and it is very easy to reject it as untrue.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
My friend, let's not be delusional. We are way past the 'America number one' jingoism now. America is no longer number one. Priority one these days is 'survival' and, by promising not to make more enemies and not to waste more trillions on stupid wars, Obama's presidency makes our survival more likely than otherwise.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Between Hitler, Stalin and Mao... as US presidents? I would eliminate Stalin. Between Hitler and Mao... I'd probably pick Mao. You DO realize that the 3 are 3 VERY different people, don't you? First of all, I posted that, not FOH. So, I suffer from a case of "intellectual laziness or dereliction."? Moi? You chose Mao. He murdered millions. But evidently you see him as the lesser of 3 evils, since you chose him. There is no difference between 3 people who murder millions of their own citizens. There is no difference between 3 figureheads that will continue the policies of the real powerbrokers in DC and elsewhere (or they will end up having the backs of their heads exploding like Kennedy if they dont play ball). It's not cases of "intellectual laziness or dereliction". It's not knowing the difference between right and wrong, or good and evil. Choosing what you hope to be the lesser evil is still choosing evil.
------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------
Well said, though it seems your battling a mentality that says we have the moral right to nuke any other country we want if it makes life more comfortable for us at home.
Of course there are differences. I agree that it's not easy to choose between Hitler and Mao but Mao won because he seems to be a much cooler dude than the other 2. He didn't have Gulags or concentration camps, by the way. Yes, people died but it wasn't done in an efficient, well-organized way. Thet 3 are VERY different and, IF you had the power to choose, you should not give up and throw yourself at the mercy of... whomever.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
If you're right, and you may be right, then nothing matters because we will get one of these 3. And if it doesn't matter, what's the big deal that there's so much infighting here over this subject?
It seems to be so. I remember a couple of discussions on Truman's courageously incinerating 100,000 Japs and most did not agree that he was a mass murderer.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Delusional? I asked a very simple and direct question. Have you an answer?
You had my answer. Oh, as for Obama's party... what does the party have to do with anything? I am against ANY party and I support the criminalization of all party-related activities. We can have a discussion on that at some point.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Your answer is that you're an Obama guy because of a political promise. And I'm delusional? What will you fall for next? Wishes, hopes, fairy dust in the eyes? A promise offered by a politician is what has made you a believer in Obama? Emotional thinking like yours is why Moe, Larry and Curly are on this years menu.
Comrade, have I not been on your filter?
Hey, obey Obama !! He's a nice guy !! /ophilespeak
Fine. Let's phase it another way. Would you rather get shot with a Winchester, a Remington, or a Mossberg?
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price." Vir Cotto, Babylon 5
I don't blame the Obamaphobes and I don't blame the Obamaphiles. there is a good case for both. Though I think there is not a dime's worth of difference between the 3 I may actually vote for Obama in November. my main motivation is that I think it is a good faith effort to tell the rest of the world that we Americans don't always vote for the most pro-war candidate. When our government goes forth and utterly does away with many people, then I would prefer that the rest of the world saw us Americans vote in an anti-war direction when we had the choice.
Revelation 6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and [see] thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
I don't like cancer or AIDS. If I choose not to give myself a case of either, does that make me a cancerphobe? or and AIDSphobe? Does thinking that Obama is nothing but another NWO stooge of a slightly different color making me an Obamaphobe? I'm just trying to see if this open letter applies to me...
Tagline space for rent.
A cooler dude. That is quite intellectual. And you claim others have "intellectual laziness or dereliction"? If you are serious, then act like it. You chose Mao, instead of telling Mao, Hitler, and Stalin to eat *&$% and die twice. So, you are depending on the tender mercies of a mass murderer to carry you through. "IF you had the power to choose, you should not give up and throw yourself at the mercy of... whomever. " That is another false choice. I place myself at no ones mercy. I am responsible for 1 person, myself. I depend on them for nothing, least of all "mercy".
------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------
If it's such that we will get shot regardless, what's wrong with making a choice? Does it matter enough to argue over it?
There are 2 kinds of people on 4um. Those that like Obama because they are white guilters, and those who hate Obama because they are racists. At least that seems to be the options put forth collectively by us 4umers.
Inarguable points .... but of course they'll be rejected by the 'phobes. That's all they do, reject.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Are you sure? It could be your last chance. Oh! But if you set on your butt you you could get another chance in 2012.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Your nutty comment on the 2nd, and worse, your refusal to amend it, makes your political additions to conversation pure baffonery.
From you, with a mind so open your brain apparently fell out...
Other than someone trying to convince me that I'm going to get less dead with one over the other two, nothing is wrong with it.
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price." Vir Cotto, Babylon 5
I keep an eye on those in my state legislature and keep track of what they do. They hear from me and my friends on a regular basis. In which state do you reside, if I may ask. I think that is more important anyway. I wish you well on any invasion plans they may be cooking up.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Dusty Springfield This song might be older than some of the Philes, but it's what their support of Obama is based on.
A considerable number have. How's it workin' for yuh?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
that's reaaaaaly a stretch and a distortion, imo. that comparison you presented became very convoluted. many of us couldn't see your proposition as an either or.
I don't consider this to be fighting. I already stated that I dont blame people for supporting a candidate. But there needs to be a well thought out reason for doing so beyond the fact that he reminds me of The Rock (WWE wrestler and actor). And to pick a candidate because he MAY not be quite as bad as the other 2 is not a good reason to support anyone. Obama could be the worst of the bunch. He is almost too glib. Remember how well Klinton worked the crowd? How did his presidency work out?
------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------
The banksters must be laughing out loud hysterically at all of this...
I have voted for too many statist whores and plan to quit now.
The U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.--PJ O'Rourke
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price." Vir Cotto, Babylon 5
This place is infested by the hard left. At the core are lawyers, so that comes as no shock. The keys to the software are in the possession of a man of questionable character, so yes, they must be laughing their asses off.
Your nutty comment on the 2nd, and worse, your refusal to amend it, makes your political additions to conversation pure baffonery. Let's see... You said you'd be willing to shoot an innocent girl for the "greater good" of securing the 2A, and I said I'd refuse to promote the killing of innocent people to promote the 2A. I'll stick with my comment. As for you, it seems your comment is one a certain George W. Bush would agree with and in fact, has taken to heart: Kill and torture innocent people because it's "good". You can take that swill elsewhere.
Except for the off chance that they are right about one not being loaded?
These were you terms: choose between these 3. Apparently, you believe that the coolest thing is to refuse to make a choice because they are all equally bad. Are you aware that Dante found that the Inferno is partitioned into several circles and that there are degrees of monstrosity? Being somewhat familiar with the works and lives of the 3 individuals you mentioned, if there were 3 and only 3 choices, I would favor Mao for U.S. president. I would hope that he defeated Hitler and Stalin.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Neil,
you goofy bastard, because of your gun statement, people are doing just that.
If you have a moral bone in your body, you'd return any money christine has
given you for "service" and then you'd take a long walk off a short pier.
No. Why?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Well, it was nonetheless a parable of my original statement for which I got crucified. And sorry to say, it does not appear to be a stretch in the case of JT: If that's his honest mentality, then he can't be trusted with the 2A.
Is it possible that Obama would not fully deliver on his promise? Of course it is. All we have in our Universe is probabilities. However, the odds are in favor of his not starting new wars and withdrawing most troops from Iraq. The odds also favor McCain not doing any of these and it's less clear what Hillary would do. Again, we only have these three so, that's what it is. Sure, if you feel like going on an assassination rampage and eliminate all the GOP's with delegates other than Ron Paul... be my guest. I promise not to tell. Until that happens, Obama is my pick. And Ron Paul's, by the way.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
An anti gunner as the software manager? Scary.
These are false options, coming from the false premise that 'there is not one dime worth of difference... etc.' It is intellectually lazy to stick to this. All that's required is a minimum of mental agility to understand that the premise is false and it is so in a ridiculous way.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Maybe it's good enough to prefer him over the other two, while voting for Ron Paul? That's my position. My first thought: A whole hell of a lot better than Bush's. That said, I remember when I first saw him in a D debate of the 92 election. Among the line up, he looked like the personification of mafia itself. For me it was like it was written on his forehead. Clinton may have killed a few dozen people, but a least it wasn't a few hundred thousand.
You have totally lost it. Totally.
California
Explain to me how the above differs from the neo-con agenda. You closed your post of Renewing ... with your own little "summary", beginning as follows: Three points of interest: 1. Obama says that they hate us for our freedoms. 2. In a round about way he accuses Al-CIA-duh of being bitter and clinging to guns and Allah because they hate the US. Decades of US intervention in the ME had nothing to do with it! Would you kindly cut and paste those words form Obama's speech, unedited or changed in any way, or, for that matter, whatever it was he said to lead you to such irresponsible accusations. Thank you.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
You shit in the pool and haven't the courage to accept responsibility. You're beginning to become a common denominator is forum disasters. Congrats.
OK, but again we get into the lesser of evils. Keep choosing evil and we keep getting worse, not better. Paul was our last chance at a peaceful restoration of the republic, imo. As a constitutionalist he was the only one that stood a chance of turning the tide. But he never really had a chance. The power brokers saw to that.
------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------
California You and your friends are keeping California on the straight and narrow? BWAAHAAAHHAAA!
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Great. How about sharing with all of us how much better Saint Obama is or dropping the "intellectually lazy" line of horseshit you've been slinging. If you want to play the role of some abused girlfriend, convinced she has to choose between which guy she thinks will beat her less, knock yourself out.
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price." Vir Cotto, Babylon 5
And you are a whiny little bitch that goes to highly personal attacks when your pussy hurts. I'd say that Neil has the moral high ground, and you are a amusing little tyke with a soul so shallow a walk through it would scarcely get your feet wet.
My terms were similar to your terms. The difference was only in degree, not in kind. I was trying to get you to see that choosing evil was evil. You don't have to choose. You don't have to play their game. But I understand why you do. I was the same way. Guess who wins? The ones that make the rules you must play by. The deck is no longer stacked in our favor.
------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------
Of the three, I like Obama. I'm of mixed blood so I can't be a white guilter.
Accept responsibility? You've yet to deny or redact your willingness to shoot an innocent girl, and you have the audacity to lecture ME about responsibility? Tull, you are insane. Plainly you are insane. You care not a single fiber about the people around you. You care only about your self and your own well being, and you'll kill those around you, innocent people, just out of your own selfish greed. So yes, you have plenty in common with George Bush. You have no love of liberty except for your own! To hell with with everyone else! I am completely sick of you and expect your bozo count will be going up shortly.
The "White guilt" argument is so scatter gun and generic, it has never been worthy of consideration as a true point of argument. People posing it would use it to try to attack any candidate with Negro blood. I just ignore wankers posing this as a valid point of argument concerning candidates for high public office.
Your premise is that they are all equally evil or that, at least, all three of them have crossed a threshold of evilness beyond which it doesn't really matter who is the eviler one - like in the case of those who qualify for the death penalty, even though some may have killed 5 people while some killed 10 or 20. However, your premise is false. There are clear differences between the 3 and, remember, even Dr. Paul noted that, of the 3, Obama is the the one least likely to expand the wars. I believe that he is correct.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
1. Obama says that they hate us for our freedoms. "A crucial debate is occurring within Islam. Some believe in a future of peace, tolerance, development, and democratization. Others embrace a rigid and violent intolerance of personal liberty and the world at large." This sounds like something your average FReeker would post. 2. In a round about way he accuses Al-CIA-duh of being bitter and clinging to guns and Allah because they hate the US. Decades of US intervention in the ME had nothing to do with it! " This century's threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism." Remember, the half century of the US mucking about in the middle east is all in your head. You just think you're being bombed because you hate immigrants. I'll throw in #3 for fun. 3. Unpopular and preemptive war is okay so long as you mean well and think about it really hard before dropping the bombs. Bombs filled with the love of Saint Obama. "I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened." If he starts talking about smoking guns and waving a tube of faux-anthrax around, I'm heading for the nearest air raid shelter. And the quote that makes me scream "my brain is on fire!" " We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability..." I don't know if I should laugh or cry anymore. This entire pointless drama would make for grade A entertainment if not for the innocent people dieing every day.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
I never said, and I never implied, any such thing. Say Obama is 1% evil. Hitlery is 80%, and McInsane is 99.99%. just to arbitrarily assign values to the Candidate Evil Index, with evil being a candidates lack of faithfulness to the Constitution, not whether he/she is a good person or not. Pick Obama. We will be worse off, not better, bacause of that 1% that will be added to X% that we already have on the Current Evil Index. We need people that are not 1% evil, but -2% evil, or 2% good. Then things can improve. This sounds silly, I know.
------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------
I'm going to vote for Ron Paul on Tuesday, then vote for the best local candidates. After the primaries, I'll re-evaluate. My criteria is pretty simple. I look for the candidate who best believes as our Founders did. There is always a candidate running for national office who fills this. Not so with state and local levels where I have to go with those will do the least amount of damage.
"What began in Russia will end in America."- 1930, Elder Ignatius of Harbin, Manchuria.
Thanks for clarifying that. I never suspected your were anti gun, and was left with that impression on the whats wrong with the forum thread. I choose to stand by you on this one. That would be premeditated murder. There are just too many guilty party's out there that need to be shot, to even consider shooting an innocent person in defense of the 2nd amendment, or any other amendment as far as that goes. There is no such thing as collateral damage in my opinion. Whomever gives the order, accepts the order, or commits the deed is responsible for the entirety of the deed. We can take that even further. Whomever funds the deed is guilty also. That includes a taxpayer of a government who accepts collateral damage.
If I didn't think there was any differences between them then I wouldn't give a crap which one won. Yes there are some differences, Obama and Hillary are both going to kill health care in this nation. Obama, a political novice, is being used by the elite to flame racial tensions in this nation, not as a serious presidential candidate. McCain and Hillary are very similar when it comes to foreign policy. Obama appears slightly against the war but has more rhetoric in opposition to the war than an actual record. I will take his voting record on the war over his rhetoric used in the campaign. All three will hurt this nation, but in my opinion John McCain would hurt this nation the least. But I would never vote for any of them. I am not going to willingly vote for someone that is helping to destroy the USA. Right now I am leaning toward voting for Baldwin. But if only one of the three stooges can win, I would prefer it to be McCain.
God is always good!
You might regret those words someday if Obama wins.
God is always good!
How about just two of them? No real difference between Hillary and Obama. They even admit to that during the "debates".
Elect anyone but Obama, Clinton, or McCain.
Thank you. I welcome all readers here to compare Obama's words to the wacky/tragic experience of the last eight Bush years and his witless sound bites.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
And, after the primaries you may have helped America to have the wonderful choice of Hitlery vs. General Jack. D. Ripper in November. Then you can smugly vote for Ron again and the nation is screwed.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
This sounds silly, I know. Well, a guy name Voltaire thought so. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
"We" who support Obama don't get into the "lesser of evils" for a very good reason, it has no relevance. Clinton has a long history of disgusting behavior .... just one example, the Travel Office disgrace. Of course that was way before she began the "just folks" sham performance. Same for McCain ... perhaps the best example, his shameful behavior when he came back from Viet Nam. Other examples for these two could fill a very large book. So far the worst thing Obama has been charged with is not leaving the largest church (and the most influential one in terms of social assistance) in the ghetto to which he, Obama himself, migrated in order to try to make a difference.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
I'll listen to you until you lie. And lie you did right there. Have you read Obama's history in Chicago? Whom his associates are and have been? Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.
I see Obama got another vote of support...... Nigeria oil rebels considering Obama truce appeal Rebels who have stepped up attacks on Nigeria's oil industry in the last month said on Sunday they were considering a ceasefire appeal by United States presidential hopeful Barack Obama. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (Mend) has launched five attacks on oil facilities in the Niger Delta since it resumed a campaign of violence in April, forcing Royal Dutch Shell to shut more than 164 000 barrels of oil per day (bpd).
I'd say that Neil has the moral high ground, and you are a amusing little tyke with a soul so shallow a walk through it would scarcely get your feet wet. You can't vouch for either fellow, so why add to the diatribe? I like you. But since you trashed JT in your mutual pissing contest, I am moved to make the following statement: Without JT, this forum would be terribly boring. I find him to be consistent and principled.
Another Marxist cause?
"And you are a whiny little bitch that goes to highly personal attacks when your pussy hurts." Mike is this the way you want to be viewed??? I have known you for many years and I find such disgusting.
I disagree. I find him self serving and unprincipled in his argument.
Have you read Obama's history in Chicago? Have you read the election returns in IL? Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining. Go piss up a rope.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
It is a preview of the kind of conciliation and diplomacy that we can look forward to under an Obama administration.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
I like JT too, you just have admire his consistency, ignore his principles, and hope he gets back to humor.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
And you're OK for a 'phile, altho your trust/hope/change political mantra is short of reality :)
Good for spin bad for image...again!....would have a argument but when ones public support comes solely from various marxists and other fellow travelers I have to say the following....if it walks like a duck squawks like a duck guess what?....once again this is not to say the other two choices are any less of a duck
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
The other two "ducks" are bomb crazy. Whence comes this bomb craziness .... which apparently has also affected you? What a squandering we have done with the "peace dividend" granted us by Ron the First.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Some of you or rather all of you (still that generic 'you') keep throwing the "there's not one dime worth of difference between the three" argument - never backed with facts of any kind - to which I reply: remove the dogmatic blinders and look around. Yes, Dr. O is a bit of a socialist because he is a Democrat but, remember, presidents don't get to appropriate one dime, it's the congress that appropriates funds and there will be no expansion of socialism unless the congress funds it. However, presidents do have the power to bring our troops back home and avoid wasting trillions on ruinous military adventures. It is likely that Dr. O would ease our foreign wars burden if elected president, even Dr. Paul admits it. I can only repeat what I said on another thread. 1) Obama is probably less likely than Clinton and McCain to start a war with Iran or to escalate the occupation of Iraq. That's a plus, I agree with that. However... 2) You admit that Obama is a socialist. On economic and social issues, he is far to the left of even other members of his own party. On gun control, taxes, abortion, immigration, welfare, and affirmative action he makes Hillary Clinton look like Ron Paul. The real icing on the cake is his Global Tax Proposal. Thanks to this brilliant plan (one of the only concrete policy proposals BHO was willing to take precious time off from Hope-and-Change grandstanding for) is also one of the worst bills ever to hit the Senate floor. If BHO gets his way, we have to pay welfare not only to our indigent dregs, but to all of Africa too. Doesn't that sound terrific? So as far as I'm concerned, 2 cancels any benefits of 1. Now, you claim that BHO can't push agenda (2) on his own. That's like saying that Bush isn't responsible for the war because he couldn't have done it without Congressional approval. Well, if BHO gets a Democratic congress, he'll get all of (2), and then some. So saying that BHO can't cause any harm because he can't appropriate funds without Congress passing spending bills is the same as saying that Bush or McCain can't go on warmongering because Congress has to declare war.
That's not entirely accurate as my vote in a national election still only impacts North Carolina. Again, my criteria is to look for those who are as close as possible to the Founders in their practice/belief. Are there exceptions to my rule of thumb? Yes. I will exercise that tomorrow as I vote for Carl Mumpower against John Armor (aka Congressman Billybob on FreeRepublic) who is a moderate Republican and again for Heath Shuler if by some miracle Armor wins the primary tomorrow. Armor is a threat and danger to our Constitutional Republic and cannot, must not, be allowed to rule in any capacity. I can't state emphatically enough how dangerous this man is. Obama says the right things about Iraq which gets a lot of traction here. The cold reality is President Bush has locked into Iraq for the foreseeable future. Obama may be able to reduce our presence, but it is highly unlikely he will be able to get us out altogether. When tomorrow comes, there is a candidate running for President who is best aligned with the Founders (Ron Paul) and that's who'll I vote for. I make no apologies for that and I reject on its face the notion my vote will screw the nation or that this nation is screwed, period. We'll survive, won't be easy, but we'll survive.
"What began in Russia will end in America."- 1930, Elder Ignatius of Harbin, Manchuria.
Well, to play devil's advocate here for a minute, hasn't Obama been calling for an expanded role in Afghanistan? What good is swapping one foreign policy quagmire for another? Sure, "obliterate them" Hillary is an obscenity; and so is "bomb bomb" McCain, but is "let's bomb Pakistan" Obomba any better? Ghost, you are no better an advocate for the devil than you are for Obama. Obama has clearly stated that he desires to root out bin Laden and rid the world of him. That was our nation's stance way back in '02 ... one that was damn nearly supported by our all of our fellow citizens and just about the entire civilized world! I for one still support it. I speak as one who has often stated the position that of the 3 bad candidates left "in the running", Obama is the least bad. I still believe that, a LITTLE BIT, For cysakes ghost, please CEASE such "support". With friends like you, who needs enemies? Go ahead .... join the "vote for Aaron Burr" camp, or whoever ... you're not opposing the Obamaphobes, you're tossing them raw meat every day. In this instance, the Decider is finally on to something ... you're either for us or against us.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Well, to play devil's advocate here for a minute, hasn't Obama been calling for an expanded role in Afghanistan? What good is swapping one foreign policy quagmire for another? Sure, "obliterate them" Hillary is an obscenity; and so is "bomb bomb" McCain, but is "let's bomb Pakistan" Obomba any better? Ghost, you are no better an advocate for the devil than you are for Obama. Obama has clearly stated that he desires to root out bin Laden and rid the world of him. That was our nation's stance way back in '02 ... one that was damn nearly supported by our all of our fellow citizens and just about the entire civilized world! I for one still support it. I speak as one who has often stated the position that of the 3 bad candidates left "in the running", Obama is the least bad. I still believe that, a LITTLE BIT, For cysakes ghost, please CEASE such "support". With friends like you, who needs enemies? Go ahead .... join the "vote for Aaron Burr" camp, or whoever ... you're not opposing the Obamaphobes, you're tossing them raw meat every day. In this instance, the Decider is finally on to something ... you're either for us or against us. Then you can smugly vote for Ron again and the nation is screwed. That's not entirely accurate as my vote in a national election still only impacts North Carolina. That's not entirely accurate. If enough sooters turn our tomorrow it could determine the momentum and the ultimate nominee of the Democrat party. If the consequent McCain-Clinton contest doesn't effect North Carolinians, then y'all have some Secession plans I'm not privy to.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Unlike many I have a microphone and have been on record as far back as the first Iraq war being opposed to wars in far away places....good try no cigar
He's just being honest. Just because Obama is less likely to go to war with Iran shouldn't blind people like you to the fact that Obama is no Ron Paul on foreign policy, and to the fact that on domestic social and economic issues, Obama is even more of a socialist than Hillary Clinton. I can understand people voting for Obama as a lesser evil on foreign policy, but what I can't for the life of me get is how people here delude themselves into being excited about supporting the guy - unless you like the thought of paying a Global Tax and having more gun-grabbing legislation signed into law. The Obamaphiles here remind me of many Bush supporters in 2000. They started out grudgingly voting for "the lesser evil" because at the time Gore seemed even worse, but somehow they conned themselves into turning "lesser evil" into "greatest thing since sliced bread."
Same here, only it goes back to Korea. My opinion is congruent with Obama's ... we both oppose "dumb wars" ... and we both make an exception with regard to Osama.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I fell right out of my seat when I actually understood it was YOU that said this. Someone else called it first...you just might not be a Globalist-Marxist after all. Still prolly a CFR-D...but waking up to the realities brought to you by TPTB. CFR National Party politics today is totally fixed; it is nothing more than a well orchestrated show, it's rigged and the game is over. Now what? I couldn't make it any further than that first sentence in the second paragraph...fell out of my seat again. Ok, I'll get back to the rest of your post now.
I myself don't support this 'war on terror'. And when Obama voices support for it, then I don't like him for it. The FBI said there is no evidence agaisnt Bin Laden in the september 11 events. the whole war on terror is a wild goose chase where the only real goal is more war. We don't have any good choices, so if we make a choice that someone else says is bad, then what difference does it make? If you're against terrorism, then the first thing to do about it is to have a real investigation of september 11 events. I think the people who directed that there be no response by the USAF to the hijackings should be jailed for incompetence if not for terrorism. this is where we need to start. and who was it that allowed the bombs to be planted in those 3 buildings. They need to be arrested too for incompetence if not for terrorism. this is how you fight terrorism, by directly confronting those responsible for it and punishing them. But you can't do that by just overthrowing the Afghan government. The Afghan government did not attack us. We gave aid to the afghan government even, the last aid check we gave them was in August of 2001. Who were the senators & congressmen who approved that aid check to the Taliban? They should be voted out long long long before we even consider war against them. and we didn't vote them out. What about the FBI undercover agent who made the bomb used in the 1993 bombing of the parking garage at the WTC? That individual was following orders, but who gave him those orders and who set this priority? That individual should be jailed. So, since Obama doesn't care about who the culprits are and punishing them, he wants to go on this wild-goose chase in Afghanistan/Pakistan, etc., then I say that Obama is soft on terror. same with Clinton & McCain.
Revelation 6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and [see] thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
Well if you a student of war-fare than you know there have not been any "just wars" in the past century....I could make a exception for the Boer War
Just because Obama is less likely to go to war with Iran shouldn't blind people like you to the fact that Obama is no Ron Paul on foreign policy, Who the hell else has been since Bob Taft? The rest of your post is just Limbaugh applesauce circa 1992.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
THAT is what has everyone's last antennae (of many) up imo...
That's a huge unmistakable tell right there when they support Zbig...or Kissinger.
Do you disagree that Obama will work to expand the welfare state, or do you just not care? Foreign policy is an important issue, but it shouldn't be the only one.
I think it's funny that two neocons put up a ridiculous gas tax holiday and BHO was right there to look like some People's champion while being the most Liberal United States Senator in the whole coop...they're all mocking us. TPTB pwned us.
There are things about Obama that trouble me. His association with Zbig, for example, bothers me. Zbig was in large part an architect of the Afghanistan policy that dragged that nation into chaos, killed a lot of people, and created Al Qaida, among a host of other sins. 1) Bush's plan was not Zbig's plan. 2) Created Al Qaida? I hate to even paraphrase McInsane, but Al Qaida was IN Afghanistan! 3) I assure you Zbig's plan did not include "cutting and running" from the Paki border to pursue the Iraq debacle and the Oil & Israel dreams. Stop hitting the snooze button ... there's serious election coming up in November and if enough people who should know better don't come down on the right side you're gonna have a couple of doozies to finally make your choice from.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
I guess I'll worry about that when we get off the Chinese welfare that Bush has put our nation on.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
1) Bush's plan was not Zbig's plan. 2) Created Al Qaida? I hate to even paraphrase McInsane, but Al Qaida was IN Afghanistan! 3) I assure you Zbig's plan did not include "cutting and running" from the Paki border to pursue the Iraq debacle and the Oil & Israel dreams. Stop hitting the snooze button ... there's serious election coming up in November and if enough people who should know better don't come down on the right side you're gonna have a couple of doozies to finally make your choice from.
Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin notwithstanding, of course. Given I identify with Ron Paul, that's how I'm voting. In the larger scheme of things in North Carolina, my vote, as former Governor Jesse Ventura put it, is essentially for none of the above. I can't identify with any of the Big 3. I'll vote for Ron Paul tomorrow and sleep very peaceful about it. However, if Hillary gets elected, I can just about assure you one of the Houses of Congress will go Republican. If elections are honest, we historically vote in opposing parties in the various branches. A Republican House/Senate would actually give a little lip service to the Constitution and defy Hillary on almost every move. A McCain presidency would almost assure a Democrat Congress who would present a real stumbling block to his aggressive foreign agenda.
"What began in Russia will end in America."- 1930, Elder Ignatius of Harbin, Manchuria.
Partisan gridlock is the best we can hope for as of now. President Obama + GOP Congress would be great. He'd propose bills, they wouldn't pass. They pass, he vetoes. No new laws passed means no harm done. Now, McCain + Democratic Congress is more of a problem. McCain gets along well with Democrats, especially pro-neocon Democrat "hawks," so having a split Exec/Legislative branch wouldn't give us the same safeguards.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Given I identify with Ron Paul, that's how I'm voting. In the larger scheme of things in North Carolina, my vote, as former Governor Jesse Ventura put it, is essentially for none of the above. I can't identify with any of the Big 3. I'll vote for Ron Paul tomorrow and sleep very peaceful about it. However, if Hillary gets elected, I can just about assure you one of the Houses of Congress will go Republican. If elections are honest, we historically vote in opposing parties in the various branches. A Republican House/Senate would actually give a little lip service to the Constitution and defy Hillary on almost every move. A McCain presidency would almost assure a Democrat Congress who would present a real stumbling block to his aggressive foreign agenda. McNuts will rubber stamp whatever the RATS and he can conjure up, including the CFR's-rockefellerian Globalist agenda...I guess the best case scenario is that the CFR-D and CFR-R Party wings will cease to exist? The worst case scenario is that Marxism in the form of a North American Soviet Union and Union of the Americas takes over and quickly. It's on the way right now...it's all bad from here on out, no matter how it's dressed up. The globaalists won.
Obama Economic Controller By Webster Tarpley OBAMA'S TRIFECTA: FOREIGN POLICY LINE IS RUN BY TRILATERAL FOUNDER ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI -OBAMA''S WIFE LINKED TO COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS WASHINGTON DC -- Barack Obama's top economics adviser is a member of the super-secret Skull & Bones society of Yale University, of which George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and John Kerry are also members, reliable sources confirmed tonight. Goolsbee is widely reported to have told Obama not to back a compulsory freeze on home mortgage foreclosures to help the struggling middle class in the current depression crisis, as demanded by former candidate John Edwards. Hillary Clinton has advocated a one-year voluntary freeze on foreclosures. Obama has offered counselors to comfort mortgage victims as they are dispossessed, citing the 'moral hazard' of protecting the public interest from Wall Street sharks. By adding the infamous Skull & Bones secret society to his campaign roster, Obama, who bills himself as the candidate of change and hope, has attained a prefect trifecta of oligarchical and financier establishment backing for his attempt to seize the nomination of the Democratic Party for 2008. Obama's main overall image adviser and foreign policy adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, and the mastermind of the disastrous Carter administration. Obama's wife Michelle is reputed to be closely linked to the Council on Foreign Relations. Behind the utopian platitudes dished up by the Illinois senator, the face of the Wall Street money elite comes into clearer and clearer focus. George Will, in an October 2007 Washington Post column saluted Goolsbee's "nuanced understanding" of traditional Democratic issues like globalization and income inequality; he "seems to be the sort of fellow -- amiable, empirical, and reasonable--you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be," wrote the arch-oligarchical apologist Will. From Wikipedia: 'Austan D. Goolsbee is an economist and is currently the Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. He is also a Research Fellow at the American Bar Foundation[1], Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of the Panel of Economic Advisors to the Congressional Budget Office. He has been Barack Obama's economic advisor since Obama's successful U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois. He is the lead economic advisor to the 2008 Obama presidential campaign.' pInG
That's a lotta weight to put on one man's shoulders. He's a politician, not some divine presence come to "rescue" America. It's the very highhandedness of this claim that this man will "remake the world" that makes some of us laugh. You gotta be shittin' me.
Au contraire, scooter, if history is any indicator. In the twelve instances of a President's first time run for the Presidency (back to and including Hoover) the results are as follows: Only two presidents entered office with the opposition party in control of both houses. (Nixon and Bush I). One president entered office with the houses split. (Reagan, Republican Senate). One other (Bush II) had a 50/50 split in the Senate (if you want to count that).
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Any points to make since the end of the Cold War?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
The old, "vote for "x" or the world as we know it will end" routine! The same shit that's been bandied about by ideologues of the two-party fraud since the days of the BBS message boards. I've heard it all before. I'll tell you now the same thing I've told others in the past. I don't care. I have certain beliefs. If I do not believe that a candidate's belief's are in line with my beliefs, then they do not get my vote. Period. I do not believe that Obama's belief's are in line with my own. I believe him to be a government supremist. The same goes for Clinton and McCain. If I thought that Obama was serious in his rhetoric about the war, it might be different, but I do not believe this to be the case. I believe he is pandering for votes. Others disagree and that's fine. They have their vote and I have mine.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
How soon we forget the havoc in NY, the multiple beheadings, oft as not of innocents. No, Jihadist terrror is for real. He, bin Laden, proclaimed responsibility for 9/11, live and on video, right before your lyin' eyes ... even confessed that he was pleasantly rather amazed at the resultant destruction. It he chooses to recant on the gallows, just pull the trap door on the SOB anyway. Had the neocons not leaped on the tragedy to excuse their lust for Imperial power + Israeli domination of the ME ... and the Oil Prez & Veep for the same plus riches, the job would have been accomplished long ago. BTW, Did the FBI wipe any of the egg of their faces before making their statement?
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
It's a pleasant dream, but I ref. you to #126
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
You should live so long as to cast an effectual vote. Best of luck.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
How effective votes are are strictly in the eyes of those casting the vote. You're welcome to your opinion and to cast your vote as you see fit, as will I.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Sounds like a plan!
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Middle East hegemony and corporate profits just might be a real goals. They don't war just for war's sake, but to use it to achieve one or more real goals.
[robin different thread] it [nc - using bozo] is an attempt to escape hateful, racist remarks that do not make my day better. [Pinguinite #22] And if it doesn't matter, what's the big deal that there's so much infighting here over this subject? As there is little policy difference between Obama and Hillary, and almost no difference argued, the reason some proclaim the election makes no difference and then spend all day bashing just one candidate, Obama, is not based upon his ideology or policy positions. Obama is black and it is based on race. We have had info being posted directly from racist (and sexist) Christian Identity slop, just not identified as such. One such site offers a poll on whether to send the Blacks back to Africa, and a petititon to repeal the 19th Amendment and revoke women's right to vote. The women can take a neat pledge giving their vote to their godlike husband: "I, as a submissive woman of God, and of sound mind, do hereby give my vote to this man of God: __________________ to exercise for the glory of Yahvh, our Creator." This site has been blessed with online polling data from that nuthouse. One might say a poll from such a source is less than reliable. Hillary voted against a ban on partial birth abortion, October 21, 2003. That is the procedure where the child is partly delivered feet first, the skull is pierced and the brains vacuumed out, the skull collapsed, then the delivery completed, cutting it up into pieces as necessary to get it out. On what policy or ideology basis could one single out Obama for abortion condemnation? If such people want to say they are racists and hate black people, they can do so. I get tired of a one-sided racist smear campaign disingenuously posing as non-racist opinion.
Real but bogus. But, I just can't let go of revenge for invasion. Probably just the Irish in me.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Obama is black and it is based on race. Buckle on your shit-storm helmet. The least you will be accused of is the generally accepted diagnosis of moi, suffering from "white guilt".
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Obama's supporters say they are racist by supporting his racist ass. You got some nerve to cry racist when supporting a racist candidate. Some nerve indeed. Much like Obama's.
God is always good!
Calling Jesse Hijackson, Calling Albert Sharpton, ah hey hey heyyyy...
Amazing isn't it? They conveniently forget, as does Obama when he calls people a "typical white person", that the guy is half white.
God is always good!
Bitter-clinging-xenophobic-holy-roller-gun-nut bump...=)
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Excellent post. None of the Above in 2008!
Elect anyone but Obama, Clinton, or McCain.
Boy, were you fucking wrong or what?
You pathetic f**king world socialist scum.
I think Xlinton had more raw political talent back in his prime. Since his botched bypass surgery and rather obvious brain damage (inevitable in any heart-lung machine procedure), he has lost his skill. Take his teleprompter away and Yomama is nothing. Really. I think of him as the voice-over announcer for our Teleprompter-In-Chief.
Obviously, reading Hayek has had a good influence on you. Of course, I would say that since I agree with you. :)
funny. did obama use a teleprompter tuesday night when taking questions from the press?
He had a big screen above and behind the press corps. In his previous press conference he had two small teleprompters on the floor to the right and left of his podium, which retracted after he gave his opening statement. The big screen stayed up.
are you saying his answers to the questions then were his own?
Good point.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Are you nuts? I didn't listen to that crap! LOL. I did listen to the tail end of Rush today and didn't shut the radio off quick enough to avoid Sean Vannity. He mentioned this presser and said that Yomama used the teleprompter for his opening remarks of four minutes and then winged it. The TOTUS part was his usual eternal campaign speech; his impromptu was a stumbling bore. Well, according to Vannity anyway.
Here's what the NY Times reported yesterday: "The White House made a logistical change for this news conference. At his first prime-time conference, they had set up two small teleprompters to his left and right for his opening statement. They then retracted to the floor for the question-and-answer session. "But the machines were visible in some camera shots, drawing scorn from critics because past presidents generally did not use teleprompters except for major speeches. This time, aides dispensed with teleprompters and set up a larger screen behind the reporters, so Mr. Obama looked straight into the cameras as he gave his opening statement, in effect addressing viewers at home more directly."
Some of you or rather all of you (still that generic 'you') keep throwing the "there's not one dime worth of difference between the three" argument - never backed with facts of any kind -
Thought for the day:
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
#2. To: farmfriend (#1)
#3. To: farmfriend (#1)
So, I'm still not going to vote for McHillobama.
Lord Acton
#4. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#2)
We should all follow our consciousness and we should all be prepared to live with the consequences of our deeds.
Thought for the day:
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
#5. To: James Deffenbach (#3)
I have never voted for any statist whore and don't plan to start now.
Thought for the day:
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
#6. To: farmfriend (#4)
#7. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#6)
(Edited)
If the federal executive could be confined to the powers and the responsibilities that the constitution assigns to it, the identity of the U.S. president would be largely irrelevant.
Thought for the day:
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
#8. To: farmfriend (#7)
Things will only change when enough people stop voting or start voting third party.
Lord Acton
#9. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
Some of you or rather all of you (still that generic 'you') keep throwing the "there's not one dime worth of difference between the three" argument - never backed with facts of any kind - to which I reply: remove the dogmatic blinders and look around.
#10. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
#11. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
#12. To: PSUSA (#11)
If people had a choice between Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, who would you vote for?
#13. To: FOH (#12)
That one started a conversation that led to an Obamaconner putting me on filter...
#14. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
keep throwing the "there's not one dime worth of difference between the three" argument - never backed with facts of any kind -
#15. To: FOH (#12)
If people had a choice between Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, who would you vote for?
#16. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
#17. To: christine (#14)
keep throwing the "there's not one dime worth of difference between the three" argument - never backed with facts of any kind -
#18. To: Jethro Tull (#16)
Please name for me what Obama or his Party represent that places America first.
#19. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#15)
As I explained, we are facing cases of intellectual laziness or dereliction. There are 3 individuals attempting to get the job of US president. They are different and they are likely to act differently, once elected. 2 of them are terrible, the third may be a small positive over what we have now.
#20. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#18)
My friend, let's not be delusional. We are way past the 'America number one' jingoism now. America is no longer number one. Priority one these days is 'survival' and, by promising not to make more enemies and not to waste more trillions on stupid wars, Obama's presidency makes our survival more likely than otherwise.
#21. To: PSUSA (#19)
#22. To: PSUSA (#19)
There is no difference between 3 figureheads that will continue the policies of the real powerbrokers in DC and elsewhere..
#23. To: Pinguinite (#20)
(Edited)
your battling a mentality that says we have the moral right to nuke any other country we want if it makes life more comfortable for us at home.
#24. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#18)
My friend, let's not be delusional.
#25. To: Jethro Tull (#24)
#26. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#25)
You had my answer.
#27. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#15)
Between Hitler, Stalin and Mao... as US presidents? I would eliminate Stalin. Between Hitler and Mao... I'd probably pick Mao. You DO realize that the 3 are 3 VERY different people, don't you?
#28. To: Jethro Tull (#26)
#29. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, christine (#17)
By the way it's impossible to prove the 'not one dime worth of difference' statement to be true and it is very easy to reject it as untrue.
#30. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
(Edited)
#31. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
#32. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#21)
agree that it's not easy to choose between Hitler and Mao but Mao won because he seems to be a much cooler dude than the other 2
#33. To: orangedog (#29)
Fine. Let's phase it another way. Would you rather get shot with a Winchester, a Remington, or a Mossberg?
#34. To: Critter (#31)
Does thinking that Obama is nothing but another NWO stooge of a slightly different color making me an Obamaphobe?
#35. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
#36. To: James Deffenbach (#3)
I have never voted for any statist whore and don't plan to start now.
#37. To: Pinguinite (#34)
At least that seems to be the options put forth collectively by us 4umers.
#38. To: iconoclast (#35)
That's all they do, reject.
#39. To: Pinguinite (#33)
If it's such that we will get shot regardless, what's wrong with making a choice?
#40. To: farmfriend (#4)
#41. To: FOH (#28)
Wishing and hoping and
thinking and praying,
planning and dreaming
#42. To: farmfriend (#7)
Things will only change when enough people stop voting or start voting third party.
#43. To: Pinguinite (#20)
Well said, though it seems your battling a mentality that says we have the moral right to nuke any other country we want if it makes life more comfortable for us at home.
#44. To: Pinguinite (#22)
And if it doesn't matter, what's the big deal that there's so much infighting here over this subject?
#45. To: Jethro Tull (#41)
#46. To: James Deffenbach (#3)
I have never voted for any statist whore and don't plan to start now.
#47. To: PSUSA (#11)
The 3 Stooges were funny, but I don't want to be FORCED to choose one of them to be president. And what we have here are 3 not-so-funny 3 Stooges.
#48. To: FOH (#45)
The banksters must be laughing out loud hysterically at all of this...
#49. To: Jethro Tull (#37)
#50. To: orangedog (#39)
Other than someone trying to convince me that I'm going to get less dead with one over the other two, nothing is wrong with it.
#51. To: PSUSA (#32)
That is another false choice. I place myself at no ones mercy. I am responsible for 1 person, myself. I depend on them for nothing, least of all "mercy".
#52. To: Pinguinite (#49)
You can take that swill elsewhere.
#53. To: FOH (#27)
Comrade, have I not been on your filter?
#54. To: christine (#43)
that's reaaaaaly a stretch and a distortion, imo. that comparison you presented became very convoluted. many of us couldn't see your proposition as an either or.
Yep, the poor thing goes for the greater good.
#55. To: Jethro Tull (#26)
Your answer is that you're an Obama guy because of a political promise.
#56. To: Pinguinite (#54)
#57. To: orangedog (#29)
Fine. Let's phase it another way. Would you rather get shot with a Winchester, a Remington, or a Mossberg?
#58. To: PSUSA (#44)
And to pick a candidate because he MAY not be quite as bad as the other 2 is not a good reason to support anyone.
Obama could be the worst of the bunch. He is almost too glib. Remember how well Klinton worked the crowd? How did his presidency work out?
#59. To: Jethro Tull (#52)
Neil, you goofy bastard, because of your gun statement, people are doing just that. If you have a moral bone in your body, you'd return any money christine has given you for "service" and then you'd take a long walk off a short pier.
#60. To: iconoclast (#40)
In which state do you reside, if I may ask.
Thought for the day:
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
#61. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#9)
Renewing American Leadership
#62. To: Pinguinite (#59)
#63. To: Pinguinite (#58)
My first thought: A whole hell of a lot better than Bush's.
#64. To: farmfriend (#60)
In which state do you reside, if I may ask.
#65. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#57)
These are false options, coming from the false premise that 'there is not one dime worth of difference... etc.' It is intellectually lazy to stick to this. All that's required is a minimum of mental agility to understand that the premise is false and it is so in a ridiculous way.
#66. To: Jethro Tull (#62)
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#67. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#51)
These were you terms: choose between these 3. Apparently, you believe that the coolest thing is to refuse to make a choice because they are all equally bad.
#68. To: Pinguinite (#34)
Those that like Obama because they are white guilters
#69. To: Jethro Tull (#62)
You shit in the pool and haven't the courage to accept responsibility. You're beginning to become a common denominator is forum disasters. Congrats.
#70. To: Fred Mertz (#68)
"Of the three, I like Obama. I'm of mixed blood so I can't be a white guilter."
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#71. To: PSUSA (#67)
#72. To: iconoclast (#61)
#73. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#71)
(Edited)
Your premise is that they are all equally evil or that, at least, all three of them have crossed a threshold of evilness beyond which it doesn't really matter who is the eviler one
#74. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
#75. To: Pinguinite (#49)
#76. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
Some of you or rather all of you (still that generic 'you') keep throwing the "there's not one dime worth of difference between the three" argument - never backed with facts of any kind
#77. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#2)
We should all follow our consciousness and we should all be prepared to live with the consequences of our deeds.
#78. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#17)
By the way it's impossible to prove the 'not one dime worth of difference' statement to be true and it is very easy to reject it as untrue.
#79. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#72)
#80. To: scooter (#74)
I'm going to vote for Ron Paul on Tuesday, then vote for the best local candidates. After the primaries, I'll re-evaluate.
#81. To: PSUSA (#73)
We need people that are not 1% evil, but -2% evil, or 2% good. Then things can improve.
#82. To: PSUSA (#63)
OK, but again we get into the lesser of evils.
#83. To: iconoclast (#82)
in the ghetto to which he, Obama himself, migrated in order to try to make a difference.
#84. To: iconoclast (#79)
#85. To: Ferret Mike (#66)
And you are a whiny little bitch that goes to highly personal attacks when your pussy hurts.
#86. To: robnoel (#84)
Nigeria oil rebels
#87. To: angle, Ferret Mike (#85)
Without JT, this forum would be terribly boring. I find him to be consistent and principled.
#88. To: angle (#85)
"Without JT, this forum would be terribly boring. I find him to be consistent and principled."
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#89. To: Ragin1 (#83)
#90. To: robnoel (#84)
Nigeria oil rebels considering Obama truce appeal
#91. To: angle, Jetho Tull (#85)
Without JT, this forum would be terribly boring. I find him to be consistent and principled.
#92. To: iconoclast (#91)
#93. To: iconoclast (#90)
#94. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
#95. To: robnoel (#93)
....if it walks like a duck squawks like a duck guess what?....once again this is not to say the other two choices are any less of a duck
#96. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
If you (and it's a generic 'you') insist on being so intellectually lazy or derelict as to being unable or unwilling to see any difference between the three of them, that's the way you see things or rather imagine them and I am unable to cure or even treat your intellectual laziness or dereliction. I shall point out to you that even Dr. Paul saw a difference between the 3 and expressed a preference for Dr. Obama but you showed extreme obtuseness, dogmatism, lack of imagination and an inability to accept facts on a recent thread discussing that topic.
#97. To: iconoclast (#80)
Then you can smugly vote for Ron again and the nation is screwed.
#98. To: ghostdogtxn, a vast rightwing conspirator, *Obama 2008 (#94)
#99. To: bookmark, *Obama Reality Check* (#98)
To: ghostdogtxn, a vast rightwing conspirator, *Obama 2008
#100. To: scooter (#97)
#101. To: iconoclast (#95)
which apparently has also affected you?
#102. To: Mudboy Slim (#99)
(Edited)
hunnerd
two
#103. To: iconoclast (#98)
(Edited)
#104. To: robnoel (#101)
Unlike many I have a microphone and have been on record as far back as the first Iraq war being opposed to wars in far away places
#105. To: iconoclast (#98)
#106. To: ghostdogtxn (#94)
Sure, "obliterate them" Hillary is an obscenity; and so is "bomb bomb" McCain, but is "let's bomb Pakistan" Obomba any better?
#107. To: ghostdogtxn (#105)
(Edited)
[Although if you're against the Establishment, you would be be against McHillObama...must be a "D" thing around here.]
I'm not FOR Obama or AGAINST Obama, I'm FOR America, and I'm FOR peace.
#108. To: iconoclast (#98)
#109. To: iconoclast (#104)
#110. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#103)
#111. To: ghostdogtxn (#105)
But I'm not a fan of cults of personality.
#112. To: ghostdogtxn (#105)
There are things about Obama that trouble me. His association with Zbig, for example, bothers me. Zbig was in large part an architect of the Afghanistan policy that dragged that nation into chaos, killed a lot of people, and created Al Qaida, among a host of other sins.
#113. To: iconoclast (#110)
(Edited)
#114. To: ghostdogtxn (#105)
Obama's shameless kissing of the ring with AIPAC and Israel bothers me, too. I recognize that such bowing and rhetorical scraping to the PTB is sometimes necessary to maintain one's aspirations, but it still bothers me.
#115. To: ghostdogtxn (#105)
#116. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#113)
(Edited)
Do you disagree that Obama will work to expand the welfare state, or do you just not care?
#117. To: iconoclast (#115)
Crack that O'whip !! LOLOL
#118. To: iconoclast (#115)
...there's serious election coming up in November and if enough people who should know better don't come down on the right side you're gonna have a couple of doozies to finally make your choice from.
#119. To: scooter (#118)
(Edited)
However, if Hillary gets elected, I can just about assure you one of the Houses of Congress will go Republican. If elections are honest, we historically vote in opposing parties in the various branches. A Republican House/Senate would actually give a little lip service to the Constitution and defy Hillary on almost every move. A McCain presidency would almost assure a Democrat Congress who would present a real stumbling block to his aggressive foreign agenda.
#120. To: iconoclast (#115)
#121. To: scooter (#118)
Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin notwithstanding, of course.
#122. To: ghostdogtxn (#120)
(Edited)
http://www.rense.com/general80/web.htm
To Zbig, the Afghanis were expendable pawns in his ambition to humiliate the Soviet Union and bloody them up a bit. That tells you a lot about the man and his opinions, and it ought to trouble you that Obama has taken such a Macchiavellian on as an advisor.
Is Skull And Bones Member
Austan 'The Ghoul' Goolsbee, Yale '91
2-4-8
#123. To: Jethro Tull, *Obama Reality Check* (#122)
#124. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
So, help save America
#125. To: All, *North American Union* (#122)
By adding the infamous Skull & Bones secret society to his campaign roster, Obama, who bills himself as the candidate of change and hope, has attained a prefect trifecta of oligarchical and financier establishment backing for his attempt to seize the nomination of the Democratic Party for 2008. Obama's main overall image adviser and foreign policy adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, and the mastermind of the disastrous Carter administration. Obama's wife Michelle is reputed to be closely linked to the Council on Foreign Relations. Behind the utopian platitudes dished up by the Illinois senator, the face of the Wall Street money elite comes into clearer and clearer focus.
#126. To: scooter (#118)
we historically vote in opposing parties in the various branches. A Republican House/Senate would actually give a little lip service to the Constitution and defy Hillary on almost every move. A McCain presidency would almost assure a Democrat Congress who would present a real stumbling block to his aggressive foreign agenda.
#127. To: ghostdogtxn (#120)
#128. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
My friend, the rationale has been provided to you, more than once: the alternatives to Dr. O are either Hillary or McCain.
#129. To: Red Jones (#108)
I myself don't support this 'war on terror'. And when Obama voices support for it, then I don't like him for it. The FBI said there is no evidence agaisnt Bin Laden in the september 11 events. the whole war on terror is a wild goose chase where the only real goal is more war.
#130. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#119)
President Obama + GOP Congress would be great. He'd propose bills, they wouldn't pass. They pass, he vetoes. No new laws passed means no harm done.
#131. To: Hayek Fan (#128)
If I do not believe that a candidate's belief's are in line with my beliefs, then they do not get my vote.
#132. To: iconoclast (#131)
You should live so long as to cast an effectual vote. Best of luck.
#133. To: iconoclast (#131)
(Edited)
You should live so long as to cast an effectual vote. Best of luck.
#134. To: Hayek Fan (#133)
You're welcome to your opinion and to cast your vote as you see fit, as will I.
#135. To: Red Jones, iconoclast (#108)
the whole war on terror is a wild goose chase where the only real goal is more war.
#136. To: Pinguinite (#22)
[a vast rightwing conspirator - article] Some of you or rather all of you (still that generic 'you') keep throwing the "there's not one dime worth of difference between the three" argument
#137. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones (#135)
Middle East hegemony and corporate profits just might be a real goals.
#138. To: nolu_chan (#136)
As there is little policy difference between Obama and Hillary, and almost no difference argued, the reason some proclaim the election makes no difference and then spend all day bashing just one candidate, Obama, is not based upon his ideology or policy positions.
#139. To: nolu_chan, *Racist 2008* (#136)
If such people want to say they are racists and hate black people, they can do so.
#140. To: Racism Alert, Racism Alert, Racism Alert (#136)
Obama is black and it is based on race.
#141. To: FOH (#140)
Calling Jesse Hijackson, Calling Albert Sharpton, ah hey hey heyyyy...
#142. To: RickyJ (#141)
#143. To: iconoclast (#127)
#144. To: ghostdogtxn (#105)
#145. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#55)
Is it possible that Obama would not fully deliver on his promise? Of course it is. All we have in our Universe is probabilities. However, the odds are in favor of his not starting new wars and withdrawing most troops from Iraq.
#146. To: nolu_chan (#136)
Obama is black and it is based on race.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#147. To: PSUSA (#44)
Obama could be the worst of the bunch. He is almost too glib. Remember how well Klinton worked the crowd? How did his presidency work out?
#148. To: Hayek Fan (#128)
I believe him to be a government supremist. The same goes for Clinton and McCain. If I thought that Obama was serious in his rhetoric about the war, it might be different, but I do not believe this to be the case.
#149. To: TooConservative (#147)
I think of him as the voice-over announcer for our Teleprompter-In-Chief.
#150. To: christine (#149)
did obama use a teleprompter tuesday night
I've already said too much.
#151. To: MUDDOG (#150)
#152. To: RickyJ, nolu_chan (#139)
Obama's supporters say they are racist by supporting his racist ass. You got some nerve to cry racist when supporting a racist candidate. Some nerve indeed. Much like Obama's.
Lord Acton
#153. To: christine (#149)
did obama use a teleprompter tuesday night when taking questions from the press?
#154. To: christine (#151)
are you saying his answers to the questions then were his own?
I've already said too much.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest