Obama

[Floyd Lawson]

Some of those are false, some of those have nothing to do with the question, and some of them are just silly. Nice try though.

Are you a front-man for the Obama campaign?....Aren't you a citizen of Canada?

[suv_guy_19]

Are you a front-man for the Obama campaign?....Aren't you a citizen of Canada?

 

 

I am (the second thing), but it doesn't really matter because much above is still false. Now I know the media isn't unbiased, but many of them have looked into many of the concerns above, especially the rumors about him being Muslim. He is not, was not, and even if he is (he's not) it wouldn't change who he is.

Edited August 16, 2008 by suv_guy_19

[Floyd Lawson]

I am (the second thing), but it doesn't really matter because much above is still false. Now I know the media isn't unbiased, but many of them have looked into many of the concerns above, especially the rumors about him being Muslim. He is not, was not, and even if he is (he's not) it wouldn't change who he is.

Well I'm sure he appreciates your support, especially since you can't vote for him. And since you seemed to think that most of these are false, one can only assume that you have fully investigated each...correct?

[suv_guy_19]

Well I'm sure he appreciates your support, especially since you can't vote for him. And since you seemed to think that most of these are false, one can only assume that you have fully investigated each...correct?

 

 

I have not, and I don't care to take the time to search out the answers for each. Some of them are definitely false. Some are probably false. Some have nothing to do with the question they were supposed to be answering (such as the last one).

 

What it really is is conservative propaganda. Nothing more.

[Floyd Lawson]

I have not, and I don't care to take the time to search out the answers for each. Some of them are definitely false. Some are probably false. Some have nothing to do with the question they were supposed to be answering (such as the last one).

 

What it really is is conservative propaganda. Nothing more.

Thanks, now we all have the privilege of your opinion. For whatever that's worth.

[NLPRacing]

I have not, and I don't care to take the time to search out the answers for each. Some of them are definitely false. Some are probably false. Some have nothing to do with the question they were supposed to be answering (such as the last one).

 

What it really is is conservative propaganda. Nothing more.

 

Floyd likes to repeat Rush & Hannity. He's incapable of backing up his claims with real facts. Just ignore him, I do...

[Floyd Lawson]

Floyd likes to repeat Rush & Hannity. He's incapable of backing up his claims with real facts. Just ignore him, I do...

What you meant to say was, you try to ignore me, but so far you've been unsuccessful, because you obviously you read my post.

[methos]

Obama's 'Not Exactly's':

 

 

 

1.) Selma Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to

have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was

in 1965. (Google 'Obama Selma' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and

articles about its various

untruths.)

 

2) etc...Ad nauseam.....

 

 

Isn't all this rather trivial? Do I care if he misspoke of an article decades past? Does that make him a liar or like everyone else fallible. In any event, many sites have this "not exactly" list and many sites have its contradictions. I really hate this stuff, there are many such lists on both McCain and Obama, but I attribute it to haters and those that would rather cloud the issues rather than have any substantive conversation, a pity.

 

The opposing points -

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

Edited August 17, 2008 by methos

[xr7g428]

Meth,

 

Thank you for posting that. It would be a terrible shame for any candidate to be defeated by innuendo and aspersion. Obama and McCain are sufficiently different in so many positions that it makes no sense to see the race devolve into a mudslinging fest.

 

The real question regarding Obama is the thinness of his resume. This by no means indicates that he doesn't have the skills to be successful, only that we don't get the benefit of a track record to prove it. But track records come with baggage as we can see from Hillary Clinton, and sometimes the baggage is just too much of a burden. Perhaps Obama will select a running partner that might be able to reduce the concerns over his lack of experience. I think that Clinton would be the ideal choice, but doubt that she would be willing to accept the step backwards from the Senate.

 

Regardless, Obama has this one in the bag. This election will be won by the majority of minorities. Regardless of who wins, the government is actually becoming less relevant to society and the economy everyday. The majority of the budget is already spent, monetary policy is dominated by what they must do, not by what they would like to do, and most law is being written in the courts. In two years we will be back to grid lock and probably better off for it.

[RaZor]

I am not amazed that Reps/Conservatives continue to cite "experience" and "look at his resume" as their main gripe about Obama. Or in other words, he doesn't have any "executive" experience – actually neither of them do. Why is that? Americans have often in the past felt that was important – which is why so many presidents have come from governorships.

 

However, that does not appear to be the case this time as Bill Richardson was the only Dem that had been Governor (of New Mexico for more than five years). Before that he was the U.S. Secretary of Energy, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and a member of the U.S. House for fourteen years.

 

On the Rep side, there were three viable candidates with executive experience. First, for eight years Giuliani was the mayor of a major city (with a large population - greater than many states). Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, a successful businessman (although his history of corporate raiding as the basis of his success may have posed questions in the minds of many - which is quite different than building a business from scratch), and he practically ran the 2002 Winter Olympics single-handed. Why not Huckabee? He had far more proven executive know-how than McCain.

 

So why did voters of both parties reject these (experienced executives) for Senators?

 

Could it be that voters worry that governors know how to pull strings? Could it be that voters are rejecting the idea of electing a governor because "that's what we did last time, and look how that turned out." Could it be that even so many Reps are disgusted with Dubya's record that the desire for change seems to have bypassed the consideration of actual experience and most likely are willing to go-for-it (the chance of change) over and above former job titles of the candidates? Governor? Nope. Bush was a governor -- and it appears that he could turn out to the worst (or close to it) president in the history of the country – and I am not willing to suffer any longer and I might not live long enough to see things around now - let alone leave this country in such a mess for my descendants. Toss out that resume.

 

Actually, it appears that very few people (esp Reps) even looked very closely at Bush's resume pre-2000. Otherwise he wouldn't have even prevailed (even though he became President after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of his father's appointments to the Supreme Court – how could it even have got that close?) in 2000 – and then get re-elected in 2004. So we may had a substantial number of people who are willing to over look a lot of things because of their personal obsessions. How did that saying go? "You can fool some of the people some of the time . . ." Well, obviously, there are some that can be fooled over and over again (and all you have to do is pull their 'fear' trigger).

 

Could it be that with a Senator, we feel somehow reassured? Not that legislators are immune to the potential of corruption or the call of greater power, but they don't already have a perfect battle plan in place (wonder how long it will take to find the smoking gun that Dubya had his Iraq war planned even before he got 'elected'?), and so any attempts to go down that road of self-service will be far more transparent in the eyes of the American people.

 

Consider this: we can look at the President with probably the least amount of political experience, executive or not, before taking over the Presidency. He had served only two years in the U.S. House, representing the seventh district of Illinois. But in the White House, he reshaped the Republican Party, freed many hundreds of thousands of enslaved Americans, and kept the nation together against the will of millions.

 

That political newcomer was Abraham Lincoln.

[NLPRacing]

<< CHIRP >> << CHIRP >>

 

Did somebody say something?

[timmm55]

I am not amazed that Reps/Conservatives continue to cite "experience" and "look at his resume" as their main gripe about Obama. Or in other words, he doesn't have any "executive" experience – actually neither of them do. Why is that? Americans have often in the past felt that was important – which is why so many presidents have come from governorships.

 

............

 

Consider this: we can look at the President with probably the least amount of political experience, executive or not, before taking over the Presidency. He had served only two years in the U.S. House, representing the seventh district of Illinois. But in the White House, he reshaped the Republican Party, freed many hundreds of thousands of enslaved Americans, and kept the nation together against the will of millions.

 

That political newcomer was Abraham Lincoln.

 

I enjoyed reading your post(s)....nice to see people who think on here (a car site no less!)

[timmm55]

It looks like the Swiftboating has begun in earnest.

 

(How to make a draft dodger (Bush) look like a "Military Man", and a real War Hero/anti-War Hero (Kerry) look like a liar........by lying and false innuendo). Really sleazy stuff thanks to Carl Rove.

 

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/rjsnj/CVHJ

 

McCain: the Maverick, has turned into McBush: the power hungry insider. He'll pull out ever sleazy trick in the book too....just like Bush/Rove.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0831-10.htm

[Len_A]

I am not amazed that Reps/Conservatives continue to cite "experience" and "look at his resume" as their main gripe about Obama. Or in other words, he doesn't have any "executive" experience – actually neither of them do. Why is that? Americans have often in the past felt that was important – which is why so many presidents have come from governorships.

 

However, that does not appear to be the case this time as Bill Richardson was the only Dem that had been Governor (of New Mexico for more than five years). Before that he was the U.S. Secretary of Energy, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and a member of the U.S. House for fourteen years.

 

On the Rep side, there were three viable candidates with executive experience. First, for eight years Giuliani was the mayor of a major city (with a large population - greater than many states). Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, a successful businessman (although his history of corporate raiding as the basis of his success may have posed questions in the minds of many - which is quite different than building a business from scratch), and he practically ran the 2002 Winter Olympics single-handed. Why not Huckabee? He had far more proven executive know-how than McCain.

 

So why did voters of both parties reject these (experienced executives) for Senators?

 

Could it be that voters worry that governors know how to pull strings? Could it be that voters are rejecting the idea of electing a governor because "that's what we did last time, and look how that turned out." Could it be that even so many Reps are disgusted with Dubya's record that the desire for change seems to have bypassed the consideration of actual experience and most likely are willing to go-for-it (the chance of change) over and above former job titles of the candidates? Governor? Nope. Bush was a governor -- and it appears that he could turn out to the worst (or close to it) president in the history of the country – and I am not willing to suffer any longer and I might not live long enough to see things around now - let alone leave this country in such a mess for my descendants. Toss out that resume.

 

Actually, it appears that very few people (esp Reps) even looked very closely at Bush's resume pre-2000. Otherwise he wouldn't have even prevailed (even though he became President after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of his father's appointments to the Supreme Court – how could it even have got that close?) in 2000 – and then get re-elected in 2004. So we may had a substantial number of people who are willing to over look a lot of things because of their personal obsessions. How did that saying go? "You can fool some of the people some of the time . . ." Well, obviously, there are some that can be fooled over and over again (and all you have to do is pull their 'fear' trigger).

 

Could it be that with a Senator, we feel somehow reassured? Not that legislators are immune to the potential of corruption or the call of greater power, but they don't already have a perfect battle plan in place (wonder how long it will take to find the smoking gun that Dubya had his Iraq war planned even before he got 'elected'?), and so any attempts to go down that road of self-service will be far more transparent in the eyes of the American people.

 

Consider this: we can look at the President with probably the least amount of political experience, executive or not, before taking over the Presidency. He had served only two years in the U.S. House, representing the seventh district of Illinois. But in the White House, he reshaped the Republican Party, freed many hundreds of thousands of enslaved Americans, and kept the nation together against the will of millions.

 

That political newcomer was Abraham Lincoln.

Good points all around. Especially the last paragraph.

[Imawhosure]

I think it is hysterically funny watching Obama supporters attempting to turn one of his biggest negatives into a positive; especially when virtually ALL the pols show he is sinking fast. (Which means MOST voters are smarter than you think and know a few obvious truths, 1. Obama is a rookie, 2. He is running on aura, and no substance whatsoever, 3. his drilling policy backed by the enviro nation is ANTI-AMERICAN.)

 

Do I believe they love Mcain? Hell no, lololol. But 2 minutes before I started writing this post, the numbers were shown on the screen from pols and the kool-aid is coming, lol. (and noooooooo, not on Fox News, lolol)

 

Without knowing it, Russia has made Mcain almost a virtual lock!!!!!! It seems after seeing Russia do its thing, then basically dissing NATO in the press, Americans are now realizing why Obama is a dud, and not a stud!! And the reaction from Obama and Mcain were like night and day.

 

Watch and see what all the commercials look like when the season gets into full swing. Between this gaff by Obama, his stance (with the help of the enviro nation) on drilling until he found out how unpopular his stance was, good old rev Wright, along with many others, there is just to much fodder to list.

 

And the Dems response?

 

Mcain is Dubya, Dubya is Mcain, lololol. Obviously America doesn't think so, as Obamas numbers say he only has the support of 74% of DEMOCRATS, the rest will not vote, or vote Mcain. This while Mcain has 81% of Republicans in his camp, and all this before it really starts rolling with "remember when Obama said this, or Michelle said that, or Wright proclaimed all these things." And then the issue of record and experience will begin.

 

You shoulda went with Hilly, but you people knew better, lolol. And speaking of that, I am reading reports that this love fest in Denver might not be so kissee face as the super delegates don't want another disaster and are closely watching the public opinion numbers.

 

I love great political theatre, and will make some popcorn and watch this intently, just to see how the messiah reacts when he comes to the conclusion most of his party is ready to toss him into the waves.

[fmccap]

Without knowing it, Russia has made Mcain almost a virtual lock!!!!!! It seems after seeing Russia do its thing, then basically dissing NATO in the press, Americans are now realizing why Obama is a dud, and not a stud!! And the reaction from Obama and Mcain were like night and day.

Do what thing?

[retro-man]

Dream on. The reason Russia is trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union, Iran is launching an orbital delivery vehicle and continuing enrichment, Pakistan threw out Musharref and pretty much leaves the tribal regions alone, North Korea tested a nuke, and on and on, is because the Bush Regime has squandered every last ounce of our our political capital and stretched our all-volunteer military to the breaking point. We have refused to engage, and refused to engage (until the last 2 months or so). We have pushed and pushed and pushed to put missile defense in the former Soviet satillites, and to bring them into NATO - foolishly. If we had played it cool, hardliners in Russia wouldn't have felt they have to make a point - take a stand. Of course all this encroachment on their former territory would inflame national sentiments. Are we that naive about human motivations? If we had let economic and social development take their natural course, Russia would have been enticed - they were being enticed - by growing wealth, and by full participation in the first world. Instead we pushed and pushed and pushed their backs to the wall, and voila! here we are with a situation. And they know there's not a thing we can do about it. Nobody - but nobody - will follow us again after what we did to the world in 2003. Post 9/11, we had the sympathy of the entire world. Post Afghanistan, even Libya came back to the table. We were right then. But Iraq changed all that. And Obama was right about Iraq. McCain was wrong. The neocon cadre impatiently overplayed its hand, and now we are bankrupt for it. Morally, Politically, Diplomatically, Economically, bankrupt. Perhaps the politics of fear will be sufficient to allow McCain to trump reason again this time. After all, the American public was able to be sucked in twice already. Does that sound elitist to you? I call 'em like I see 'em.

Edited August 21, 2008 by retro-man

[fmccap]

Dream on. The reason Russia is trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union, Iran is launching an orbital delivery vehicle and continuing enrichment, Pakistan threw out Musharref and pretty much leaves the tribal regions alone, North Korea tested a nuke, and on and on, is because the Bush Regime has squandered every last ounce of our our political capital and stretched our all-volunteer military to the breaking point. We have refused to engage, and refused to engage (until the last 2 months or so). We have pushed and pushed and pushed to put missile defense in the former Soviet satillites, and to bring them into NATO - foolishly. If we had played it cool, hardliners in Russia wouldn't have felt they have to make a point - take a stand. Of course all this encroachment on their former territory would inflame national sentiments. Are we that naive about human motivations? If we had let economic and social development take their natural course, Russia would have been enticed - they were being enticed - by growing wealth, and by full participation in the first world. Instead we pushed and pushed and pushed their backs to the wall, and voila! here we are with a situation. And they know there's not a thing we can do about it. Nobody - but nobody - will follow us again after what we did to the world in 2003. Post 9/11, we had the sympathy of the entire world. Post Afghanistan, even Libya came back to the table. We were right then. But Iraq changed all that. And Obama was right about Iraq. McCain was wrong. The neocon cadre impatiently overplayed its hand, and now we are bankrupt for it. Morally, Politically, Diplomatically, Economically, bankrupt. Perhaps the politics of fear will be sufficient to allow McCain to trump reason again this time. After all, the American public was able to be sucked in twice already. Does that sound elitist to you? I call 'em like I see 'em.

Does it ever make one wonder about our intervention into other people's things?

 

Georgia has a US puppet leader that the people don't approve of.

Musharref was the same thing.

We were once behind Saddam.

We were behind Iran's Shah who the people of Iran didn't like.

 

Does anyone ever wonder??????????

[Imawhosure]

Dream on. The reason Russia is trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union, Iran is launching an orbital delivery vehicle and continuing enrichment, Pakistan threw out Musharref and pretty much leaves the tribal regions alone, North Korea tested a nuke, and on and on, is because the Bush Regime has squandered every last ounce of our our political capital and stretched our all-volunteer military to the breaking point. We have refused to engage, and refused to engage (until the last 2 months or so). We have pushed and pushed and pushed to put missile defense in the former Soviet satillites, and to bring them into NATO - foolishly. If we had played it cool, hardliners in Russia wouldn't have felt they have to make a point - take a stand. Of course all this encroachment on their former territory would inflame national sentiments. Are we that naive about human motivations? If we had let economic and social development take their natural course, Russia would have been enticed - they were being enticed - by growing wealth, and by full participation in the first world. Instead we pushed and pushed and pushed their backs to the wall, and voila! here we are with a situation. And they know there's not a thing we can do about it. Nobody - but nobody - will follow us again after what we did to the world in 2003. Post 9/11, we had the sympathy of the entire world. Post Afghanistan, even Libya came back to the table. We were right then. But Iraq changed all that. And Obama was right about Iraq. McCain was wrong. The neocon cadre impatiently overplayed its hand, and now we are bankrupt for it. Morally, Politically, Diplomatically, Economically, bankrupt. Perhaps the politics of fear will be sufficient to allow McCain to trump reason again this time. After all, the American public was able to be sucked in twice already. Does that sound elitist to you? I call 'em like I see 'em.

 

Nice spin control, but wrong.

 

Funny how you didn't mention that the main oil pipeline runs smack dab through Georgia (actually very close to the border area where Russia has yet to vacate. Hmmmmm, wonder why, lololol) that supplys Europe (and the oil markets) with 25% worth of Europes oil that is in production.

 

You see, Russia knows Americas Achilles heal (brought on by CERTAIN factions in our government I might add) and that would be energy. It also brings to light how precarious our position is in foreign policy that even a sneeze where oil fields are, a pipeline resides, or a refinery sits, sends oil prices back up putting American economics in doubt.

 

And what do the Dems do? Block, block, block!!!!!

 

Nobody, but nobody is against an alternative fuel. Not one of us that I know of anyway. Soooooooooooooooo, lets not drill, where is your alternative? That is right, NOT THERE!!!!!! Not yet anyway, lololol.

 

The Obama, Pelosi, Gore triumverate want us to be at the mercy of Russia, the Middle East, and every unstable country in the world including Venezuela I guess, or why else would they block drilling?

 

Go ahead and tell everyone the brilliance of this move.........to NOT drill. Explain it to the people. Maybe you can help Obama by coming up with a NEW spin he can use, cause this is coming for the whole democratic party, lolol. Just as YOU guys/gals like to show by votes of the conservatives who voted for what, when, and where, you are going to see YOUR PARTYS obstructionist votes against getting Americas own energy plastered all over your screen during this election cycle. It will also be shown if it HAD been allowed, what America WOULD be paying at the pump, how much better the economy would be, and WHO voted to screw Mr/Ms/MRS/MZ America, and that would be YOU, lolol. All this when every American, (taken very recently in a poll) Republican, Democrat, and Independent say that the price of energy is the NUMBER 1 thing affecting the pressure on their standard of living.

 

Oh yes, please XPLAIN it to the people, cause it is coming to a TV near you of who did it, and probably why. Better think of something quick, cause if not, this ain't even going to be close!!!!!

Edited August 22, 2008 by Imawhosure

[Floyd Lawson]

Maybe Obama will answer this question at this week's convention.

[Floyd Lawson]

Michelle quotes another left-wing radical in her speech last night!

 

Here’s an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals:

"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be."

[Floyd Lawson]

Biden attempts to embellish Obama's resume.

[Mark B. Morrow]

If there was any question in anyone's mind as to whether Obama has the fortitude to take on McCain, he has answered it in tonight's acceptance speech. Obama took the questions head on and provided specifics about what he wants to do and how he will do it. He was respectful of McCain but provided reasons why McCain is just a continuation of George W. Bush's failed policies on the economy and Iraq.

 

McCain will have do better than dodging questions by reminding us that he was a POW at every turn.

[mulewright]

Biden attempts to embellish Obama's resume.

 

I saw in both Bidens speech and Obama's tonight that he conveniently "forgot about the fact the he opposed the troop surge and wanted us to pull out in defeat", yet he claims he was right and the fact that we're pulling out now is evidence of that. These guys think the American people are stupid!

[retro-man]

These guys think the American people are stupid!

They're right! Exhibit 'A': mulewright.

 

You'd rather subject the American people to 4 more years of miserably failed policies - you'd rather continue down the road of assault on the constitution, of declining real wages and security, of growing income inequality, and rob the poor to feed the rich - than lose an argument and admit you were wrong. You'd cut off your own nose to spite your face. God, I hope there aren't a plurality of people like you left come November.

Edited August 29, 2008 by retro-man