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: 3844
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
Comments (1-72) not displayed.
.
.
.
#73. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#71)
(Edited)
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.
Comments (114 - 154) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYour 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)
.
.
.