Title: OBAMA GETTING HIGH ON THE DOWN LOW Source:
YOU TUBE URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY Published:Jan 30, 2008 Author:HOUNDDAWG Q. SCHWARTZ Post Date:2008-01-30 23:36:37 by HOUNDDAWG Keywords:None Views:2270 Comments:122
Poster Comment:
The "respectable" media ignores this the same way they ignored Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" before he was elected.
#31. To: All, Tauzero, noone222, freepatriot32, iconoclast, aristeides, castletrash, ghostdogtxn, (#0)
ghostdogtxn wrote: "This video is bullshit and smacks of Clinton dirty tricks. Of course, it's convenient to blame it on Ron Paul folks instead, right Hillary?"
Well gang, Larry Sinclair took a 4 hour polygraph examination, and it included drug screening to verify that he didn't chemically alter his stress/physiological responses before the test.
Does this sound like bullshit, now?
HAH!
OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S........
"The only things I like better than receiving a stuffed brown paper bag from grateful constituents and the party faithful is smoking a fact rock while getting a "beej" from a sweet bird (a swallow in fact) for whom performing the act isn't simply obligatory (like my wife) but pleasurable! Smokin' rocks in, smokin' rocks out!!"__Barack Obama
Predominantly black areas have become an eyesore. The beautiful lawns and flowerbeds I noticed in some areas three years earlier now tell sad stories of degradation. Some of them have become open-air urinals.
Now that I've finally noticed where you're comin' from (tip, short, succinct tag lines have more impact), I think I'd rather have dinner at Obama's house than yours.
Keep 'em in their place, eh? Never mind their track record or accomplishments?
Now that I've finally noticed where you're comin' from (tip, short, succinct tag lines have more impact), I think I'd rather have dinner at Obama's house than yours.
My dear iconoclast. Elites like Obama wouldn't use your kind as lawn jockeys for their homes, never mind serving you a dinner.
My dear iconoclast. Elites like Obama wouldn't use your kind as lawn jockeys for their homes, never mind serving you a dinner.
I guess an old golf partner and attorney of mine just hasn't made it into your definition of "elitist", but Obama doesn't strike as me as a much different type.
No, your friend would miss the cut. To be an elitist one would either be a politician or a man who pushes politicians in front of the masses for the national 4 year presidential ritual. Obama is the flavor of the month; an empty vessel willing to be filled by those in power to be used as an offering to those without power. I can't think of one president in my lifetime who has changed the nation or my personal standing for the better. What I have and what I am is in spite of their gobs of socialism. The problem now is that the snowball is rolling down the hill at warp speed and government will soon be so large that personal options will be thought of as historical relics. Such thought shouldn't be welcomed by rational thinkers.
The problem now is that the snowball is rolling down the hill at warp speed and government will soon be so large that personal options will be thought of as historical relics.
We have elections every two years.
Don't be too hasty at cutting your throat, you're a pretty nice guy at heart.
I heard this same nonsense from el Rushbo, et al., in '92 (i.e. the red flag and hammer and sickle would be flying over the White House in the bat of an eye. Incidentally, though not nuts about Poppy, I never had a thought of voting for Bubba).
The real challenge is to recognize similar patterns in the current political situation.
Accept that there is motive for "continuity of the dynasty."
Understand that CFR affiliation is a sure sign of cooperation with the dynasty.
Realize that the press is dominated by CFR members.
Obama's wife is CFR. He's CFR. He's got Zbigniew Brzezinski on the team. (Did you know that possibly a half million Indonesians were killed with the joint British-US backed Islamic operations against communists in the 1960s? Zbig was involved, learning to play chess on the grand chessboard.)
Supporting Obama because he sounds good is just giving the CFR a mandate. Just by refusing to vote you are saying "no."
Which CFR member or members told Obama that war in Iraq was a dumb idea and why didn't they (apparently) tell the rest of the CFR politicians (who are legion)?
Which CFR member or members told Obama that war in Iraq was a dumb idea and why didn't they (apparently) tell the rest of the CFR politicians (who are legion)?
First you're assuming he means what he's saying. I wouldn't do that with a CFR-affiliated candidate. Second, you're assuming that he hasn't talked out of both sides of his mouth on this issue (he has). Just like the NAFTA commentary recently where he criticized Hillary for supporting it, but basically said we couldn't abolish it, he has also said that he would not give a timetable for our departure from Iraq.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Before we invaded and bombed Iraq, when it was not popular to do so, Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq.
Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rall
Before we invaded and bombed Iraq, when it was not popular to do so, Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq.
The globalists take a very longterm view of our political systems. They know that war is very unpopular. For example, Woodrow Wilson was swept into his second, fateful term, on the slogan "he kept us out of war."
Just because a candidate affiliated with the globalists expresses an opinion that appears contrary to a single, unique goal that has already been realized, does not mean that they disagree with the underlying principles of moving the planet toward global government.
We take the Iraq war very seriously, but it is just another brick in the wall to the globalists.
The real problems are twofold:
The stated goals of the CFR are diametrically opposed to individual liberties and America's national sovereignty.
The lack of accountability for the CFR's influence means that shadowy groups can impose policy on our government without public knowledge.
I find it impossible to support anyone appearing to be the lesser of two CFR evils.
How would that be relevant? For those who follow the Hegelian dialectic, each juncture in history is an opportunity. There will always be more chances to shape the future. They can afford to take a very long view.
They don't need any single candidate (clearly they have many, including Obama/McCain/Hillary/Romney/Huckabee/Edwards and so forth), and the Iraq war could have been started at a different time.
So you won't give Obama any credit for having spoken out forcefully against the Iraq war in 2002, even naming Wolfowitz and Perle by name (now that was really an unpopular thing to do)? Because in your opinion, he was following the orders of CFR?
Iraq is quickly moving into the past. We must keep our eyes on the future. Obama has discussed invading Pakistan, and he has talked of sending billions of dollars in US aid to Africa. He has also talked about using US troops under UN command in Africa. These are future areas of conflict, and Obama has left himself wide open to movement in that area. He also has our stay in Iraq covered, because he has declined to give a time line for withdrawal.