| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2008 12:22:40 PM · #1401 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by posthumous:
...But mostly I voted for him because the Republicans are Satan's minions, and not in a good way. |
I heard it put this way: Globally, Obama would be considered moderate right-wing, which would put the conservative Republicans )Bush, McCain, Palin, etc) barely to the left of the Taliban. |
Yes... here's a repost of my comment above with further clarification:
An interesting article about Obama's politics compared to the generalized politics in Canada. "Tory" is a moniker for a member of the Conservative party, and "Red" is the colour of the Liberal party in Canada: "Barack Obama is not the Canadian version of a liberal politician, even while occupying the far left ΓΆ€“ as a United States senator ΓΆ€“ of the political spectrum. In Canadian terms, he'd barely qualify as a Red Tory." That is, in Canada, he's barely a moderate Conservative, but more the right of that.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2008 02:20:49 PM · #1402 |
| Why not let him get in office before deciding what he is. Nobody knows yet, other than by the company he has kept over the last 25 years. |
|
|
|
11/10/2008 02:40:00 PM · #1403 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I have an honest question. I'm not trying to stir anything up, or anything like that, but in my readings this morning, a question formed in my mind.
Was voting for Obama just because he was a black man less racist than NOT voting for him because he was?
(And yes, I've heard people on both sides say that is why they voted -- they wanted to make history or they wouldn't vote for a black man.) |
I supported him because he came out as a superior candidate. Not because of his race. In fact, I remember two of the supporters in video interviews, the day after the results... one of them was a young white student in Harlem NY, and another one a middle aged white lady in Chicago.. both clearly stated that they didnt even think about his skin color until the anecdotal story in the victory speech... and that they supported him more for his ideas and how he approaches issues.
I think when one's sub-conscious is at work (like when relating to someone's ideals), you forget to put your 'learnt' skills (categorizing people on how they look and dress and talk) up front.
Hard to believe? Not for me:-)
ETA: Just to clarify, I am not black.
Message edited by author 2008-11-10 14:41:07.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2008 02:53:43 PM · #1404 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by posthumous:
...But mostly I voted for him because the Republicans are Satan's minions, and not in a good way. |
I heard it put this way: Globally, Obama would be considered moderate right-wing, which would put the conservative Republicans )Bush, McCain, Palin, etc) barely to the left of the Taliban. |
Seems pretty close to accurate from my limited experience. |
|
|
|
11/10/2008 05:02:49 PM · #1405 |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 08:02:27 AM · #1406 |
Found a summer poem in the summer of 2008 on the internet:
When Blacks rule the United State
And the Jew grows a Christian noise on his face
When Pope plus is head of the Black Panther
In the land of Uncle Sam
Then Obama will be our president
And the Country not worth a dama
1928 all over again just like Smith Vs Hoover(maverick) |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 08:46:30 AM · #1407 |
Originally posted by whiterook:
Found a summer poem in the summer of 2008 on the internet: ... |
That's just absurd. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 09:13:51 AM · #1408 |
Originally posted by whiterook:
1928 all over again just like Smith Vs Hoover(maverick) |
It's the opposite of 1928. In 1928, the economy was booming. The republican won the election because republicans were credited with the good economy. In 2008 the republican lost the election because republicans were blamed for the bad economy.
And why are you posting a racist anti-Semitic semi-illiterate poem? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 09:59:48 AM · #1409 |
| I suppose this is exactly what I found incomprehensible, up above. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:04:14 AM · #1410 |
Ah, good ol' Smith vs. Hoover ...
Better left unquoted and unsaid.
Worth a brown ribbon (if anything).
Originally posted by whiterook:
Found a summer poem in the summer of 2008 on the internet:
When Blacks rule the United State
And the Jew grows a Christian noise on his face
When Pope plus is head of the Black Panther
In the land of Uncle Sam
Then Obama will be our president
And the Country not worth a dama
1928 all over again just like Smith Vs Hoover(maverick) |
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 10:10:40. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 12:18:38 PM · #1411 |
Originally posted by whiterook:
Found a summer poem in the summer of 2008 on the internet:
When Blacks rule the United State
And the Jew grows a Christian noise on his face
When Pope plus is head of the Black Panther
In the land of Uncle Sam
Then Obama will be our president
And the Country not worth a dama
1928 all over again just like Smith Vs Hoover(maverick) |
Ok. Question of the day:
Are you 'for' or 'against' the thoughts expressed in this poem?
((runs to the shelter)) |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 07:59:52 PM · #1412 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by whiterook:
Found a summer poem in the summer of 2008 on the internet:
When Blacks rule the United State
And the Jew grows a Christian noise on his face
When Pope plus is head of the Black Panther
In the land of Uncle Sam
Then Obama will be our president
And the Country not worth a dama
1928 all over again just like Smith Vs Hoover(maverick) |
Ok. Question of the day:
Are you 'for' or 'against' the thoughts expressed in this poem?
((runs to the shelter)) |
And, did you copy/paste it or did you write it from memory? |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 07:32:12 PM · #1413 |
"Fulfilling his promise to meet with unstable world leaders without preconditions, Barack Obama visited the White House ..."
--Peter Sagal, Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 07:49:09 PM · #1414 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Fulfilling his promise to meet with unstable world leaders without preconditions, Barack Obama visited the White House ..."
--Peter Sagal, Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me |
ROFLMAO! |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 09:39:40 AM · #1415 |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 09:46:02 AM · #1416 |
"And the Obama folks concede that eliminating anyone in Washington who had ever lobbied Congress or who has a family member who lobbied Congress would be foolish.
And it's true, you could argue the reality of Washington and our government is that lobbyists are often the most informed people on a given issue."
(Bold Mine)
Thanks Flash... so if he had non at all you'd be calling him foolish? |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 10:44:55 AM · #1417 |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 10:47:41 AM · #1418 |
I think it is just another example of a politician saying what the voters wanted to hear, so he could get their votes.
He probably knew there was no way to fulfill that promise.
And voters should have known there was no way to fulfill that promise, either. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 10:55:10 AM · #1419 |
Just the beginning of you posting every single little unimportant misstep this man makes.
At least let the man become President before trying to label him a liar or not upholding his promises.
This is going to be an interesting four years. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 11:37:14 AM · #1420 |
I find it funny how different people can read the same thing and come to totally different conclusions according to their pre-existing bias. For example, Flash reads the article and comes to the conclusion that Obama has already broken a promise. I read the article and see nothing of the sort. What I see:
The 2 quotes of Obama in that article are:
"I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."
"That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am president of the United States of America."
The information that to some makes Obama a promise breaker:
...a rather long list of names of people -- who are working on Obama's transition team or who have accepted jobs in his White House who are either former lobbyists or who have close ties to lobbyists.
1. He didn't hire any lobbyists, it says so right there in the article. "former lobbyists or who have close ties to lobbyists" are not lobbyists.
2. There's no discussion about who is setting the agenda.
The very last sentence of the article even says "And that is a promise that he may already be struggling to keep." Sure, he may be struggling, but he didn't fail already. If he had already broken that promise, wouldn't it be accurate to say so? Something like "And that is a promise that he has already failed to keep."? |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:19:22 PM · #1421 |
Given the lax rules on lobbying under the current administration, anyone who works in Washington would have to have taken a vow of poverty to have not worked as a lobbyist. Remember that not all lobbyists are the evil agents of Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Pharma, et al, but that the American Cancer Society, The Boy Scouts, religious organizations of all persuasions and municipal and state governemtns have lobbyists too ...
Somehow, I think the Obama administration will place a higher priority on finding those who are best-qualified for the position, rather than the best-connected ... |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:35:08 PM · #1422 |
| Thats right. I have no reason to think he would act differently than he has in his past 25 years in choosing his associates and friends and spiritual advisors. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:41:03 PM · #1423 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Just the beginning of you posting every single little unimportant misstep this man makes.
At least let the man become President before trying to label him a liar or not upholding his promises.
This is going to be an interesting four years. |
Please remember a couple of things;
1. Administration lying has been a considerable topic in rant for several years.
2. It matters not to me if you or others wish to defend lying - but many have used that as a reason to disparage Bush.
3. If it is OK for Obama to be a liar (which you and I both knew he was while campaigning - yet his opponent was chastised mercilessly for "false ads" and it seemed like every other post has a factcheck.org link), then please request forgiveness for any insults to the current administration and Obama's opponent.
4. Unless you feel that not all lies are equal and some lies are permissable - as long as they get you your desired results. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:49:08 PM · #1424 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Bitter much? |
No. I'm beginning to like Obama - in fact I liked him before. He has a certain stage pressence and command that I find to be assuring. Very easy to listen to. But I am not mesmerized by his rise nor am I trusting of his words - regardless of how pleasant they may sound.
But you of all the posters in Rant should understand how important telling the truth is. Your critique of Bush has been front and center to the lying charge. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 12:54:50 PM · #1425 |
Except that Obama hasn't actually lied or broken a promise, nor is he even in office yet.
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
1. He didn't hire any lobbyists, it says so right there in the article. "former lobbyists or who have close ties to lobbyists" are not lobbyists.
2. There's no discussion about who is setting the agenda. |
Given your support for a candidate whose campaign was largely run by lobbyists and who had personally lobbied Congress on more than one issue, it sounds like you're trying to pounce on something that you didn't really care about as if it suddenly matters. Kinda' like McCain's whole campaign strategy...
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 13:01:21. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:56:21 PM EDT.
