Obama grassroots beats ours?

[Paulfan05]

Unfortunately, it seems Obama is the grassroots king now

The campaign says he raised more than $40 million(in march alone) from more than 442,000, more than 218,000 of whom were giving for the first time.

If only Paul's support were this awesome, but again obama get a million times more free airtime than Paul:mad:

[Paulitical Correctness]

Half of those are traitors that were formerly on our ship. :(

[mikeycapz]

I wouldn't call him grassroots king as his real support isn't really from the grassroots. They don't go out knocking on doors educating other people. Just call them the big herd of sheep support.

[JaylieWoW]

Funny, my analysis would be that these are the thousands of people who are voting against McCain & Clinton. I am trying not to believe that people would on the one hand crucify Paul as a racist and then on the other hand be willing to forgive Obama for the company he keeps.

So, based on the myopic method in which American's now choose to elect their Presidents, I would say this is less of a vote for Obama and more of a vote against the other two evils.

[greendiseaser]

Is it really fair to even compare Paul's donations to anyone's at this point, let alone Obama's?

:cool:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Unfortunately, it seems Obama is the grassroots king now

The campaign says he raised more than $40 million(in march alone) from more than 442,000, more than 218,000 of whom were giving for the first time.

If only Paul's support were this awesome, but again obama get a million times more free airtime than Paul:mad:

The mainstream media. Their "grassroots" are ignorant, or socialist. Yes, SOCIALISTS. I'm not lyin, check out the socialist blogs. They're all for Obama. The MSM gave Obama the coverage he needed to pickup the zombie vote.

[acptulsa]

Where are the signs? The meetup groups? Why aren't they knocking on my door? Have they stormed the conventions?

They suck.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It's going to be funny. If Obama is elected, nothing will change. The man is supported by the most powerful corporations in this country, yet the socialists support him. Hell, that's why he gets the media coverage, the MSM lobbied him and they know him as an establishment candidate that they can trust. Mark my words: nothing will change. It will just get worse.

[Kade]

Yep.



It's going to be funny. If Obama is elected, nothing will change. The man is supported by the most powerful corporations in this country, yet the socialists support him. Hell, that's why he gets the media coverage, the MSM lobbied him and they know him as an establishment candidate that they can trust. Mark my words: nothing will change. It will just get worse.

Proof?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm going to have many laughs with former Obama supporters. Where's the change at? LOL. The MSM has been propping up the people to support a guy like Obama after years of white guilt and political correctness socialist propaganda.

No, I'm not a racist ;) HAHA

[kahless]

So, based on the myopic method in which American's now choose to elect their Presidents, I would say this is less of a vote for Obama and more of a vote against the other two evils.

I get into this debate with Conservatives all the time why they would vote for Obama not based on his issues but solely as a pissed off vote against the Republican party and McCain.

I feel the same way about McCain and the party but consider it lunacy to vote for a Marxist like Obama. I sure hope Ron or someone like him runs third party but will vote for McCain if no other option since Obama/Hillary will do far more damage to my wallet and individual freedoms.

[Kade]

I wouldn't call him grassroots king as his real support isn't really from the grassroots. They don't go out knocking on doors educating other people. Just call them the big herd of sheep support.

That's not true. His grassroots is massive, absolutely breathtaking really.

Organizers in every state, precinct captains that have mastered caucuses. Trust me, it is EXTREMELY organized and extremely efficient.

They are mostly made up of students.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yep.




Proof?

Ah, a socialist.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I get into this debate with Conservatives all the time why they would vote for Obama not based on his issues but solely as a pissed off vote against the Republican party and McCain.

I feel the same way about McCain and the party but consider it lunacy to vote for a Marxist like Obama. I sure hope Ron or someone like him runs third party but will vote for McCain if no other option since Obama/Hillary will do far more damage to my wallet and individual freedoms.

Tell them to vote for someone they genuinely believe in. Go Libertarian!

[Kade]

Ah, a socialist.

Because I ask for proof? You might need to redefine what you think a socialist is...

[acptulsa]

That's not true. His grassroots is massive, absolutely breathtaking really.

Organizers in every state, precinct captains that have mastered caucuses. Trust me, it is EXTREMELY organized and extremely efficient.

They are mostly made up of students.

The Democratic Party welcomes them with open arms, and the Republican Party likens us to Al Qaeda and Hitler Youth, then wonders (complete with sackcloth and ashes) why oh why they aren't growing like a weed.

Well, gee, if you even made a pretense of spreading the love beyond the top five percent...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Because I ask for proof? You might need to redefine what you think a socialist is...

Proof of what? That you're socialist? Proof is in the pudding.

[Kade]

Proof of what? That you're socialist? Proof is in the pudding.

I want proof for the claims you are making. I don't disagree with you on many things, I'm just asking for you to show me some proof Joseph. It's actually pretty embarrassing that you continue to come back to me with a perceived insult. You haven't offered anything.

Where's your proof?

[Kade]

The Democratic Party welcomes them with open arms, and the Republican Party likens us to Al Qaeda and Hitler Youth, then wonders (complete with sackcloth and ashes) why oh why they aren't growing like a weed.

Well, gee, if you even made a pretense of spreading the love beyond the top five percent...

The Democratic Party is welcoming of Libertarians. I attend many meetings, and they listen intently and with open minds. In fact, many in the party are Libertarians.

As Peikoff mentions, it is time to vote Democrat out of pure and abject fear of the rise of the Dominionists.

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=7870&

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4811

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I want proof for the claims you are making. I don't disagree with you on many things, I'm just asking for you to show me some proof Joseph. It's actually pretty embarrassing that you continue to come back to me with a perceived insult. You haven't offered anything.

Where's your proof?

Proof of what? I have stated many things. That the MSM loves him? Turn on the tv. All I know is that Obama IS very much a socialist, so it leads me to think things about Obama apologists...

[acptulsa]

Proof of what?

Kade, most of what he said in the post you quoted was opinion. Only time will tell if he's right that things will get worse under Obama, though that's a prediction I think most of us share. Are you asking for proof that corporations support him?

I must admit that I thought Clinton had most of those in her pocket.

[DeadtoSin]

Wow, this thread went south pretty fast..

[Kade]

Kade, most of what he said in the post you quoted was opinion. Only time will tell if he's right that things will get worse under Obama, though that's a prediction I think most of us share. Are you asking for proof that corporations support him?

I must admit that I thought Clinton had most of those in her pocket.

He is not supported by many corporations or lobbiest, almost none that I know about

[Kade]

Proof of what? I have stated many things. That the MSM loves him? Turn on the tv. All I know is that Obama IS very much a socialist, so it leads me to think things about Obama apologists...

I don't believe he is a socialist, even if some of his policies are defined as socialist policies. He has a healthy respect for the free market.

[acptulsa]

The Democratic Party is welcoming of Libertarians. I attend many meetings, and they listen intently and with open minds. In fact, many in the party are Libertarians.

As Peikoff mentions, it is time to vote Democrat out of pure and abject fear of the rise of the Dominionists.

Democrats as a rule over the last several years have been more likely to get fired up over rights issues and Republicans have pretty much always been more likely to kneel to Big Brother whining for safety, yes. That's why many of us feel Dr. Paul would do very well in the general election. That said, this does not make Democrats libertarian.

Libertarian encompasses more issues than that.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't believe he is a socialist, even if some of his policies are defined as socialist policies. He has a healthy respect for the free market.

ok. Democratic Socialist. Semantics.

[Kade]

Democrats as a rule over the last several years have been more likely to get fired up over rights issues and Republicans have pretty much always been more likely to kneel to Big Brother whining for safety, yes. That's why many of us feel Dr. Paul would do very well in the general election. That said, this does not make Democrats libertarian.

Libertarian encompasses more issues than that.

I wholeheartedly agree. I lean more towards Democrats because I can't stand the religious influence in either the GOP or the Libertarians.

Like Peikoff, it is about the Establishment Clause. I also care strongly about Civil Liberties, and the GOP could care less.

[micahnelson]

ok. Democratic Socialist. Semantics.

Well when we will be in a close state deciding between Democratic Socialist, Communist, or Fascist... it isn't just a semantics difference.

[jmdrake]

The OP is comparing apples and golf balls. The grassroots creating Ron Paul's momentum. Obama's momentum (created by the political elite through the media) is what has created his grassroots. Remember Obama's invitation to speak at the 2004 democratic national convention when he was just a state senator? How often does someone who was not previously nationally known and who is so low on the political totem pole get a speech at a national party convention in prime time? Also the Ron Paul grassroots was kicking butt in the fundraising realm when there were still 10 other republican candidates. Obama is getting donations at a time when people think the choice is between him, Hillary "I was taking sniper fire" Clinton, and John "we can stay in Iraq 100 years" McCain. If people thought there was a realistic chance for Ron Paul to win the presidency he'd still be raking in millions. Heck if he were to announce a third party run I'd donate again even though I don't think it would have a chance. At this point it makes more sense to donate to senatorial and congressional candidates Ron Paul has endorsed.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[acptulsa]

Well when we will be in a close state deciding between Democratic Socialist, Communist, or Fascist... it isn't just a semantics difference.

In theory, this is a true statement. In practice, it isn't looking like much more than a semantic difference this year. The Democrats aren't being very specific or serious about getting out of Iraq, haven't spoken out against this idea of making the Fed and Fannie Mae regulators, or much of anything else except expanding spending even more. Not good signs.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well when we will be in a close state deciding between Democratic Socialist, Communist, or Fascist... it isn't just a semantics difference.

Democratic Socialists: believe in a mixed economy. welfare state. They hope to bring about socialism through democratic means, without the revolution.

Communists: varying degrees, but I usually associate them with Marxists.

Fascists: Strong government, obedient people and a sort of corporate-caste system.

[Kade]

The OP is comparing apples and golf balls. The grassroots creating Ron Paul's momentum. Obama's momentum (created by the political elite through the media) is what has created his grassroots. Remember Obama's invitation to speak at the 2004 democratic national convention when he was just a state senator? How often does someone who was not previously nationally known and who is so low on the political totem pole get a speech at a national party convention in prime time? Also the Ron Paul grassroots was kicking butt in the fundraising realm when there were still 10 other republican candidates. Obama is getting donations at a time when people think the choice is between him, Hillary "I was taking sniper fire" Clinton, and John "we can stay in Iraq 100 years" McCain. If people thought there was a realistic chance for Ron Paul to win the presidency he'd still be raking in millions. Heck if he were to announce a third party run I'd donate again even though I don't think it would have a chance. At this point it makes more sense to donate to senatorial and congressional candidates Ron Paul has endorsed.

Regards,

John M. Drake

You think the media helped Obama win Iowa?

Ron Paul's chance was Iowa. Had his grassroots been as strong as Obama's... especially his campaigns mastery of caucuses, he would have done better.

You don't believe that?

[Kade]

Democratic Socialists: believe in a mixed economy. welfare state. They hope to bring about socialism through democratic means, without the revolution.

Communists: varying degrees, but I usually associate them with Marxists.

Fascists: Strong government, obedient people and a sort of corporate-caste system.

A mixed economy is not a totalitarian system. Communism and Fascism are...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

A mixed economy is not a totalitarian system. Communism and Fascism are...

It's ignorant though. And yes, the MSM pushed Obama. They always push their establishment candidates. They had a Huckabee gush for a while, and then they got serious and ignored him so that McCain can win it lol. But Huckabee sucked. Agreed.

They started pushin McCain to win NH right after Iowa. RP was tied with him, yet they ignored him or marginalized him every chance they had.

[Kade]

In theory, this is a true statement. In practice, it isn't looking like much more than a semantic difference this year. The Democrats aren't being very specific or serious about getting out of Iraq, haven't spoken out against this idea of making the Fed and Fannie Mae regulators, or much of anything else except expanding spending even more. Not good signs.

I like your quote btw... the original give me chills, the good kind.

I think Obama has been specific about the war. I think public opinion is divided enough that his current position has the best chance of winning a general election.

[Kade]

It's ignorant though. And yes, the MSM pushed Obama. They always push their establishment candidates. They had a Huckabee gush for a while, and then they got serious and ignored him so that McCain can win it lol. But Huckabee sucked. Agreed

Can you please provide the proof that he was an Establishment candidate? Especially before Iowa....

[Kade]

Democratic Socialists: believe in a mixed economy. welfare state. They hope to bring about socialism through democratic means, without the revolution.

Communists: varying degrees, but I usually associate them with Marxists.

Fascists: Strong government, obedient people and a sort of corporate-caste system.

For a libertarian, you sure do like to be absolute. You don't find that odd?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

For a libertarian, you sure do like to be absolute. You don't find that odd?

I find you odd. How am I an absolute?

"Obama, Cozy with Corporate Lobbyists"

http://www.alternet.org/election08/72079/

"Obama’s top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms"

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

[Kade]

I find you odd. How am I an absolute?

You say absolute statements without backing them up.

"Obama, Cozy with Corporate Lobbyists"

http://www.alternet.org/election08/72079/

Nice article. Some of his friends are lobbyists. Does that prove he is taking money from them, or listening to them?

"Obama’s top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms"

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

Another interesting article.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Chase are worrisome, but the contributions are by leadership, not lobbyist.
The law firms make sense.
The Unions make sense.

More?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Another interesting article.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Chase are worrisome, but the contributions are by leadership, not lobbyist.
The law firms make sense.
The Unions make sense.

More?

"While Obama has decried the influence of special interests in Washington, the reality is that many of the most talented and experienced political operatives in his party are lobbyists"

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

[Kade]

I find you odd. How am I an absolute?


You say absolute statements without backing them up.


"Obama, Cozy with Corporate Lobbyists"

http://www.alternet.org/election08/72079/


Nice article. Some of his friends are lobbyists. Does that prove he is taking money from them, or listening to them?




"Obama’s top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms"

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

Another interesting article.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Chase are worrisome, but the contributions are by leadership, not lobbyist.
The law firms make sense.
The Unions make sense.

More?

[Kade]

"While Obama has decried the influence of special interests in Washington, the reality is that many of the most talented and experienced political operatives in his party are lobbyists"

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

That article directly contradicts your previous two articles...

Now, I have to go look for myself. Nice try.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

"Obama's Love of Corporate Money and Lobbyists"

http://wizbangblue.com/2008/03/18/obamas-love-of-corporate-money-and-lobbyists.php

[Banana]

I think Obama has been specific about the war. I think public opinion is divided enough that his current position has the best chance of winning a general election.

FWIW, that 2002 speech he made against Iraq War? He wasn't opposed to wars, only to "dumb wars", but was open to interventionism.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

FWIW, that 2002 speech he made against Iraq War? He wasn't opposed to wars, only to "dumb wars", but was open to interventionism.

The Sudan might not be a dumb idea. Would win some political points. Bad to the libertarian philosophy, yes

[jmdrake]

You think the media helped Obama win Iowa?

Do you think a one term senator who's only previous claim to fame was a speech at the DNC would even have been a serious contender without the media?



Ron Paul's chance was Iowa. Had his grassroots been as strong as Obama's... especially his campaigns mastery of caucuses, he would have done better.

You don't believe that?

I wasn't on the ground in Iowa. I was on the ground here in Tennessee. My wife is an Obama supporter and volunteered. I can say with absolute certainty that the Obama ground campaign in Tennessee sucked. They didn't even have signs at all of the polling places. And while we were trying to contact EVERY potential primary voter in the state, the Obama campaign was only worried about contacting the 10,000 or so folks who had signed up as Obama supporters. My wife often told me how impressed she was with the Ron Paul grassroots and how organized we were and hard we were working. But in the end we didn't win any delegates. So no. I don't think the losing Iowa is the fault of the grassroots. And frankly I think the dumbest think we've been doing since super Tuesday is running around trying to blame someone for why we didn't do better. Some want to blame the old folks. Some want to blame the young folks. Some want to blame the truthers. Some want to blame the Christians. Some want to blame campaign itself. Now others want to blame those of us that actually got off our duffs and worked for the campaign for free. (That's what the "grassroots" are.) The fact of the matter is that this was a longshot campaign from the start. Obama was in 2nd place in the democratic nomination process before he even set foot in Iowa. If you think that's based on his "grassroots" you are kidding yourself. Could things have been done better? Sure. I can think of things I could have done better myself. Maybe instead of getting 8.5% in my district I might have broken 10%. But we wouldn't have won or even come close. I would put the average Ron Paul grassroots worker up against the average Obama grassroots worker any day of the week.

If you want to make a fair comparison at least compare Ron Paul to Mike Huckabee. But a comparison to the Obama campaign is just ridiculous.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[amy31416]

And frankly I think the dumbest thing we've been doing since super Tuesday is running around trying to blame someone for why we didn't do better.

Regards,

John M. Drake

+1

[bucfish]

Bah Bah that is all they are

[m72mc]

Unfortunately, it seems Obama is the grassroots king now

The campaign says he raised more than $40 million(in march alone) from more than 442,000, more than 218,000 of whom were giving for the first time.

If only Paul's support were this awesome, but again obama get a million times more free airtime than Paul:mad:

It´s just a free media construction. His support is as deep as his policy on change.

[acptulsa]

It´s just a free media construction. His support is as deep as his policy on change.

I think you're right. And I think his commitment to change is best illustrated by his eloquent speech decrying the PATRIOT Act being immediately followed by his vote for it. No depth of commitment there, I fear.

[Magicman]

You think the media helped Obama win Iowa?

Ron Paul's chance was Iowa. Had his grassroots been as strong as Obama's... especially his campaigns mastery of caucuses, he would have done better.

You don't believe that?


Kade, you are definitely disillusioned by reality here if you think Obama's main chances have been cause of grassroots and not the obvious 24/7 free media coverage he's been receiving.

[Magicman]

Huckabee you could use as the same case as Obama. They had some grassroots but hardly anything that substantial. Obama and Huckabee's supporters didn't put that much effort compared to Paul's supporters. He could barely raise that much but once he started getting propelled by the media they turned him into a household name and his money flowed larger then ever. That's all it is for Obama it's because of the free coverage so he's going to get more donations.

Hmm, go figure when he recruits a CFR advisor that's when he gets non-stop coverage.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

+1

The media is why. Ron Paul could have been flawless, but it wouldn't have mattered in the end.

[kahless]

Obama quote: "And we're going to rollback those Bush tax cuts that went to all the wealthy people, and we're going to give tax cuts to ordinary families, people who are making less than $75,000. We will offset your payroll tax. "

75k-150k is middle class in megalopolis areas such as the North East from DC - Boston and California. But I suppose Kade is going to bang the Obama drum all over these forums as a receipient of redistributed wealth at the expense of other hard working middle class Americans. Class warfare.

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

[amonasro]

I think Obama has been specific about the war. I think public opinion is divided enough that his current position has the best chance of winning a general election.

If he wants to end the war, why does he want to expand the military by 50,000+ troops? It's not very specific when you run around demanding an end to a war and then turn around and expand the military. He never talks about that. Why?

[Magicman]

Obama is a fraud.

He voted FOR Israel invasion in 2006 into Lebanon. There was a peaceful arab resolution that could have presented thousands of deaths and that should be on Obama's conscience. He voted for the invasion.


This guy basically brings up all the shit on Obama a good watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDr1tmNkFXA

[RCA]

Half of those are traitors that were formerly on our ship. :(

Source?

[rockandrollsouls]

no, i find it hard to believe anyone really donates to him. I think most of it is from bundlers.

[Luft97]

Funny, my analysis would be that these are the thousands of people who are voting against McCain & Clinton. I am trying not to believe that people would on the one hand crucify Paul as a racist and then on the other hand be willing to forgive Obama for the company he keeps.

So, based on the myopic method in which Americans now choose to elect their Presidents, I would say this is less of a vote for Obama and more of a vote against the other two evils.

I do believe that someone could run away from Ron on the racist issue and stand by Obama and the company he keeps. In the eyes of so many brainwashed individuals it is ok for blacks to be racist but not whites. It's the double standard that we have allowed to occur.

To Kade I think it is funny you are here trying to sing the praises of Obama and stand up for a guy who is controlled CFR corporate lobbyist scum. He might very well win due to the fact that most of the population of this country are either misinformed or just plain stupid. The proof will be in the pudding. Can I tell you I told you so this time next year? If we are still here that is.

[Roxi]

oh yes they do.... obviously you are not out canvassing.... there is obama info on many many doors, they are out knocking and they are calling for donations massively... a lot of them that i have met are not paid either... the guy has people under a spell

[JosephTheLibertarian]

oh yes they do.... obviously you are not out canvassing.... there is obama info on many many doors, they are out knocking and they are calling for donations massively... a lot of them that i have met are not paid either... the guy has people under a spell

Those people deserve to be in prison. Out of the gene pool.

[Banana]

Those people deserve to be in prison. Out of the gene pool.

and thus a libertarian dies.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

and thus a libertarian dies.

People like you keep the LP going nowhere. Such a nitpicking nag. Yeah, I've got a "banana" for you to suck on. Don't confuse emotions with seriousness, you fruitcake. There's always some nag that nitpicks like this at any opportunity. Never fails!

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Unfortunately, it seems Obama is the grassroots king now

It's not grassroots after the media picks you. Is it dumb luck that the media has 3 left? No. They're all approved, and accepted.

[Jamsie 567]

Don't call the spade until FEC donations come out a lot of his support is backed by corporate interest.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It's not grassroots after the media picks you. Is it dumb luck that the media has 3 left? No. They're all approved, and accepted.

ha. very true

[Luft97]

Those people deserve to be in prison. Out of the gene pool.

You are SOOOO Right. I have gotten to the point that I have almost given up on the majority of the masses. If they are either to stupid to act or to lazy why should I care about them? The problem I see with our government is people have gotten lazy and allowed these "people" to come in and dictate law and policy. They don't care about the day to day operations in this country. This allows corruption and "evil" people to gain control.

I go back and forth between Authoritarian and Libretarian society. Why? Because I think a truely benevolent ruler with the people's cause in mind would make great progress for a nation. On the other hand when the said ruler dies who is to say who takes over? Would he rule as well as the benevolent ruler before him? Probably not. On the other side. Look at what has happened. We have allowed our government to be hijacked by people who care only for their own personal objectives. They don't care about you or I they care about their own agenda. Why has this been able to happen? Because the masses are lazy and they don't care.

Technology has allowed this to some degree. People are mesmerised by television and electronic devices. Travel is easy. In days past if one were to be a representative in government you had to be a dedicated individual because you had to travel great distances to get to DC from your district. Now it is only a plane ride away. No big deal.

I could go on and on but I won't for now ;p

[Kade]

Kade, you are definitely disillusioned by reality here if you think Obama's main chances have been cause of grassroots and not the obvious 24/7 free media coverage he's been receiving.

Oh really? A black man winning Iowa Caucuses because he got favorable attention with Fox News. You are not going to sell that to me. Do your homework.

Most of you are just offended because I am disagreeing with you, instead of making salient points, all you can do is call me a socialist, Obama a CFR interventionist, and his policy and grassroots as weak.

Clinton was considered to have already won this nomination, long before Iowa.

Instead of assuming that he was "stamped" for approval, ask yourself again why a State Senator got the media attention....

(Answer: He got the Democratic party's excitement and approval)


Ron Paul failed in Iowa. His grassroots failed. This isn't opinion. You can blame the media all you want, but he had opportunities. If anyone has kept him down, it's not the flush of new blood to the GOP side for Ron Paul, it was the social conservatives and neocons of that party. Not the liberals. We don't vote in the GOP, but we came over anyway. Really, you need to chill with this point and take that high perception inward.

Irony here is that I disagree with about 30% of Each of them. They are a mesh in terms of policy. I can be specific, or I can simply say that my original candidate has not succeeded, and continues to run in a party I despise.

I'm not overly trying to protect Obama here, but I should point how easily you folks get angry and defensive and resort to conspiracy theories and absurdly false claims, that if you did half the research you did for Ron Paul in defending them, would realize are equally unfair in perspective.

What has Obama done?
Not much. But I can tell much about someone from the way they write, the way they think. I like Ron Paul because I found his writings. I hadn't heard him speak, or seen him. I introduced many, many people to him.

On this, I have read what Obama has written, and I like how he thinks. I think he is running to be president, and he knows, like any good social engineer, that it requires way too much pandering for men of integrity.

But we saw this same integrity breakdown with Ron Paul, (remember the terrorist/immigration ads?) there are some thing you must give up if you want to change things...

If you are going to attack the man, do so as an informed citizen, not as a ranting idiot.

[torchbearer]

Obama and his communist ties... http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/2008/02/communist-ties.html

Like Chavez? Meet his cousin Obama.

[Kade]

Obama and his communist ties... http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/2008/02/communist-ties.html

Like Chavez? Meet his cousin Obama.

You just exemplified what I just spoke of, why are the more rational people here okay with this tripe?

[torchbearer]

You just exemplified what I just spoke of, why are the more rational people here okay with this tripe?

Because its true. If i could find it, i'd pull up the article on his office in texas that sported posters of communist leaders from south america.

I'm sorry i'm dissing on your HERO, and that you will rebuke any info that will tarnish his perfect image in YOUR mind. An image well crafted by the media.
You need your booster shot, you've been in the matrix too long.

[Conza88]

Unfortunately, it seems Obama is the grassroots king now


B-A-N-A-N-A-S!!
We want BANanas, we want BANanas!!!!

{Dances} sing it with meh! :D

[torchbearer]

Che Guevara Flag flown in houston office: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only&rss

The image on the flag is the "poster" i was talking about....

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080211ObamaCheHouston.jpg

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080211ObamaCheHouston2.jpg

[Roxi]

I just found this.... geez this guy likes to spend money

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405


Obama bill: $845 billion
more for global poverty

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.

It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.


thats almost 3,000 dollars for every man woman and child in the US... not that i am against giving to charity... but i would like to do it on my own accord, and i would rather my 3,000 dollars went to something I agree with, like helping KIDS IN THE EFFING USA....

[Conza88]

I just found this.... geez this guy likes to spend money


Basically, its theft - for the sake of stealing. Then once you have the loot, throw it out the window.

[Kade]

Because its true. If i could find it, i'd pull up the article on his office in texas that sported posters of communist leaders from south america.

I'm sorry i'm dissing on your HERO, and that you will rebuke any info that will tarnish his perfect image in YOUR mind. An image well crafted by the media.
You need your booster shot, you've been in the matrix too long.

That doesn't mean Obama supports Guevara...

Are am I missing something here? Should we associate people with their supporters?

[torchbearer]

That doesn't mean Obama supports Guevara...

Are am I missing something here? Should we associate people with their supporters?

Its up on the Wall in HIS office.
He has no control over his office setup?
Swim in the Nile much?

[Kade]

Its up on the Wall in HIS office.
He has no control over his office setup?
Swim in the Nile much?

It's not on his office, I've seen the picture. It's in his campaign's office. Obama never set foot in it. And if he did, does he tell them to take it down?

[acptulsa]

Che Guevara Flag flown in houston office: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only&rss

The image on the flag is the "poster" i was talking about....

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080211ObamaCheHouston.jpg

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080211ObamaCheHouston2.jpg

Well, what do you know? Obama's grassroots did beat ours! Some of Dr. Paul's grassroots did some pretty embarrassing things, but have mercy. Don't that beat all!

[crazyfingers]

Who cares? Obama will never win. McCain is a terrible candidate but unless he screws up majorly, he will be the next president.

It all comes back to that pastor. White liberal guilt might allow him to secure the Democratic nomination, but there is absolutely no way he'll win over middle America.

[hopeforamerica]

Kade, I think you need to hop on the Obama forum. It's clear who you are voting for and supporting.

[Kade]

Kade, I think you need to hop on the Obama forum. It's clear who you are voting for and supporting.

When the forum name changes to Fascist Forest, consider it done.

[torchbearer]

It's not on his office, I've seen the picture. It's in his campaign's office. Obama never set foot in it. And if he did, does he tell them to take it down?

Judging by these statements from above:

Obama bill: $845 billion
more for global poverty

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.

It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.




I'd say he's all for global COMMUNISM. So no, he wouldn't ask them to take it down.
Look at his preacher, look at all his closest peeps. What do they have in common?
Now look at the houston office again....
Is that some lone supporter who is tarnishing his honor? Or someone who gets His programs and supports them the same way they support collectivism in south america?
The presidency is not something to play around with... and he has enough ties to our enemies to be a concern.
His policies like the one he supports above, reeks of internation collectivism.
If you want to save the world, USE YOUR OWN DAMN MONEY.

How much of Obama's own wealth has he sent personally to starving third world countries? He is more than willing to send yours.

[Kade]

Judging by these statements from above:


I'd say he's all for global COMMUNISM. So no, he wouldn't ask them to take it down.
Look at his preacher, look at all his closest peeps. What do they have in common?
Now look at the houston office again....
Is that some lone supporter who is tarnishing his honor? Or someone who gets His programs and supports them the same way they support collectivism in south america?
The presidency is not something to play around with... and he has enough ties to our enemies to be a concern.
His policies like the one he supports above, reeks of internation collectivism.
If you want to save the world, USE YOUR OWN DAMN MONEY.

How much of Obama's own wealth has he sent personally to starving third world countries? He is more than willing to send yours.

So Obama stands for a Global Government that controls the means of production and common ownership? Do I have that right?

[Conza88]

Erhm -- may I all direct you to the first link in my signature down below? ;)

:D

[torchbearer]

So Obama stands for a Global Government that controls the means of production and common ownership? Do I have that right?

No he stand for sacrificing a few for the many...
He stand for...
If its worth doing, its worth FORCING someone to do it

Its called collectivism. The very thing we are fighting. Are you sure you are on the right forum?

[acptulsa]

So Obama stands for a Global Government that controls the means of production and common ownership? Do I have that right?

From each, according to his ability. To each, according to how sorry Oprah feels for him!

[mjp1025]

Sheep have money, too!

[Aratus]

Did you see this latest poll? Its D.C "outsider" weather... the public is upset...
the public has deep doubts http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/opinion/polls/main3992628.shtml
Obama is more D.C outsider than is Ms. Hillary, just as Ron Paul is more D.C outsider
than is JOHN McCAIN! if the economy gets worse... Ron Paul's potential "indie" run
could maximize over the ones by ROSS PEROT!!! --- Kade is hinting at much...

[Aratus]

the public is not happy! the public is in a VERY antzy mood!
if we time things at the republican convention, this if in sync... !!!

[rockandrollsouls]

Obama sucks and his supporters are idiots. There. I'm not afraid to say it. It's true. They are all brainswashed morons. Kade is one of them.

[acptulsa]

Obama sucks and his supporters are idiots. There. I'm not afraid to say it. It's true. They are all brainswashed morons. Kade is one of them.

Oprah will get you for that...

[rockandrollsouls]

People with too much power who talk up people that don't know what they are preaching are a dangerous thing. Oprah is dangerous.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

When the forum name changes to Fascist Forest, consider it done.

Join or die? I guess you die, eh (referring to your avatar)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Want to know the truth? Maybe you can't handle the truth! :p

The MSM marginalized and ignored RP's campaign. So most people didn't know who he was and so they didn't vote for him. And everything they saw of him was negative, every interview was a load of diatribe. It's because the MSM is a corporate interest that picks their own candidates.

Is that a conspiracy? I saw that with my own eyes!

Guess what?

Obama's socialists are the ones that pulled that "racist newsletters" thing. It was a plan carried out by THEM! See how vicious socialists can be? We're not even out of the primaries andthey go right after Ron Paul in a different party. Why? because they know he's the only one that can beat their guy, they know he stands for freer markets and they don't want that.

They're scum.

Is COMMUNISM evil? No. It's a flawed system, I have no "beef" with it. Socialism can only work if it's voluntary, like a commune atmosphere. Those are good. People need to be free to leave when they want to.

Are COMMUNISTS evil? Not all. Many are just brainwashed. The rest are just evil. They don't care if free markets work, they want what they want and they are a cancer in this society All of the regulation and taxation originates from them and their professors that brainwash students to buy into their crap at the MAINSTREAM universities, while the free market economists are stuck somewhere near fringe and obscurity.

If Obama is their man, then I hope Hillary wins their nomination. Go hilldog! Do I support her? no lol but at least the communists aren't lining up behind her, so that's a plus in my book!

[Kade]

Join or die? I guess you die, eh (referring to your avatar)

Excuse me?

[amonasro]

Kade you have every right to supporting Obama and defending him here, but I disagree that his grassroots is the reason why he's doing well. His "grassroots" is a result of thousands upon thousands of sheep falling in love with him, as a person, on TV. Not one Obama supporter I've talked to has a deep understanding of his message. They judge him as a person, as the MSM presents him, as an easy-to-swallow candidate with "change". They duped millions, including you, into believing he's going to bring anything but more big government, more spending, and a Socialist agenda.

Respectfully I say to you: Get a clue. The man is on the news 24/7. Him and Clinton got the most coverage of ANY candidate. Look it up, wake up. This is why he is popular!

He is the boob-tube's American Idol of Presidential Elections, and he's a really good singer.

If you can present a logical argument why Obama could do as well as Paul without MSM coverage than do so. Otherwise we will continue tossing you around like a hot potato and calling out Obama for what he truly is: a Socialist.

[Kade]

Kade you have every right to supporting Obama and defending him here, but I disagree that his grassroots is the reason why he's doing well. His "grassroots" is a result of thousands upon thousands of sheep falling in love with him, as a person, on TV. Not one Obama supporter I've talked to has a deep understanding of his message. They judge him as a person, as the MSM presents him, as an easy-to-swallow candidate with "change". They duped millions, including you, into believing he's going to bring anything but more big government, more spending, and a Socialist agenda.

Respectfully I say to you: Get a clue. The man is on the news 24/7. Him and Clinton got the most coverage of ANY candidate. Look it up, wake up. This is why he is popular!

He is the boob-tube's American Idol of Presidential Elections, and he's a really good singer.

If you can present a logical argument why Obama could do as well as Paul without MSM coverage than do so. Otherwise we will continue tossing you around like a hot potato and calling out Obama for what he truly is: a Socialist.

I swear upon all altars of my life, I am the last person on this forum to be duped by anything.

Think real hard on that, before you decide to open your trap again.

[amonasro]

I swear upon all altars of my life, I am the last person on this forum to be duped by anything.

Think real hard on that, before you decide to open your trap again.

Whoa horsie... that kind of talk isn't going to get you far around here.

[Kade]

If you can present a logical argument why Obama could do as well as Paul without MSM coverage than do so. Otherwise we will continue tossing you around like a hot potato and calling out Obama for what he truly is: a Socialist.

Many liberty loving people can intellectually defend Socialism. Those people would also have a problem with Obama, since Obama tends to like Capitalism too much. Private property and uncontrolled prices.

That you are allowed to use socialism as a pejorative is attributed to greater thinkers than yourself, much greater thinkers.

You can't think beyond yourself, nor can you think for yourself. I'm not a socialist, nor am I a Trotskyist, nor am I a Marxist, nor am I a Social Democrat. I am also not a conservative.

I don't particularly like labels, but if you want one, you can call me liberal. I'm proud to be one. I'm proud that I actually stand up for ignorant people so that I have a forum and public sphere where I can talk with people who actually are halfway educated about anything.

It is hard enough to defend liberal economic principles to real socialists without tools like you coming along every other post to label me as one.

No, I don't swallow the flavor-aid. I'm not an absolutist about anything. I look for facts and I look for evidence, and I figure things out for myself. I disagree with Ron Paul on numerous issues, and I disagree with Obama on many issues. The things that matter most to me, like the Iraq War, Civil Liberties, and the Supreme Court are generally weighted heavy on the side of Paul and Obama.

See you don't learn everything you need to in school, or from your family, or from this forum, (thank non-god). It is up to you, and I would recommend staying away from the conspiracy sites.

There are major and complex problems associated with all walks of life, some principles are more important than others. I consider freedom an important principle, so I defend it wherever I may go...

I could write for hours about every major political philosophy. I can tell you why capitalism doesn't protect against foreign scavenging of our businesses. I can tell you why socialism inevitably leads to totalitarianism. I can tell you why conservatism leads to nationalism and fascism.

I don't know what works perfectly, nothing does. The system we have has survived for a good many years, and now it is truly threatened. I believe that. This administration has created a very heavy executive branch, but I also believe the pendulum will swing the other way... at least it looks that way.

We have issues to worry about, the economy, the banks, the federal government oversight into everything, loss of freedoms, overspending of government, foreign wars, environment... etc..etc...

Nobody has the "correct" answer because someone somewhere disagrees. Sometimes the best answer will piss off the most people, and sometimes its a populist approach, and it tries to make everyone happy.

As long as we have people willing to dissent, willing to fight, and willing to stand up for, at the very least, themselves, we can right the ship. Nothing is absolute.

Chill.

[Kade]

Whoa horsie... that kind of talk isn't going to get you far around here.

I'm well aware of the censorship that goes on, frankly, it's a loss for liberty.

[Kade]

Obama sucks and his supporters are idiots. There. I'm not afraid to say it. It's true. They are all brainswashed morons. Kade is one of them.

Calling me duped and a moron and I'm the one whose threatened to be banned.

I love it. Really. It should infuriate me, but I realized that some of you have no idea what you are talking about, and the "critical thinking" to you is a toilet session with Guns and Ammo magazine.

[Broadlighter]

I was listening to an NPR show yesterday that featured some Chicago newspaper journalists and a big-time supporter of Obama. He apparently is getting a lot of money from Hedge-Fund investors and Wall Street.

Don't swallow the myth that this is all grass-roots money.

[Aratus]

karl marx when delving into agrarian societies and commune socialism
did not think of how rigid a modern totalitarian nation-state can be...
marx, however... was not bakunin. anarchism has an intellectual attraction
well beyond commune socialism or the writings of leon trotsky. to go into
modern republics, one either has read one's john locke or one hasn't...
social compacts were locke's forte. sociology has changed since locke
tries to fathom calculus from the curriculum of childe newton, as well as
the abysmal lack of schooling yet the brilliant pair of books and conucopia
of ideas. intelligent design. can one infer past aquinas that a creator being
is implied by the sometimes order of our chaotic universe? can one infer as
did newton that god perhaps was a better mathematician than was ol' scratch
if the god lord let newton re-invent the mathematics of archimedes? is there
a purpose to being? i trust there is! is there a purpose to this almost grail quest?
can the lofty ideals of the better angels of this intrepid rEVOLUTIOn create a change
in this land? if only through platform planking at this september's republican convention?

[Nirvikalpa]

PACs and Lobbyists Aided Obama's Campaign

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/


In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

So whether or not he is collecting them now is not the issue - the truth is, and has to get out there, that if he collected from them before, then it is not grassroots money.

[amonasro]

Calling me duped and a moron and I'm the one whose threatened to be banned.

I love it. Really. It should infuriate me, but I realized that some of you have no idea what you are talking about, and the "critical thinking" to you is a toilet session with Guns and Ammo magazine.

Kade, we're trying to be critical thinkers with you, but you don't answer any of our questions.

Question: If Obama is so gung-ho about bringing our military home, why does he want to expand it by 50,000+ troops?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Marx was also living off of his friend that owned a business that was "enslaving"workers. Hypocrite Marx. He was also a bad father.

[Kade]

karl marx when delving into agrarian societies and commune socialism
did not think of how rigid a modern totalitarian nation-state can be...
marx, however... was not bakunin. anarchism has an intellectual attraction
well beyond commune socialism or the writings of leon trotsky. to go into
modern republics, one either has read one's john locke or one hasn't...
social compacts were locke's forte. sociology has changed since locke
tries to fathom calculus from the curriculum of childe newton, as well as
the abysmal lack of schooling yet the brilliant pair of books and conucopia
of ideas. intelligent design. can one infer past aquinas that a creator being
is implied by the sometimes order of our chaotic universe? can one infer as
did newton that god perhaps was a better mathematician than was ol' scratch
if the god lord let newton re-invent the mathematics of archimedes? is there
a purpose to being? i trust there is! is there a purpose to this almost grail quest?
can the lofty ideals of the better angels of this intrepid rEVOLUTIOn create a change
in this land? if only through platform planking at this september's republican convention?

Locke yes. Bakunin yes.

Leibniz, Hobbes, Trotsky, Böhm-Bawerk, Say, Bastiat.

I don't know the path to changing things, it is not through the corrosive flaming from these forums.

[nbhadja]

Most people are so dam stupid that they support a candidate without researching him and only going by what he says in his speeches.

[Kade]

Kade, we're trying to be critical thinkers with you, but you don't answer any of our questions.

Question: If Obama is so gung-ho about bringing our military home, why does he want to expand it by 50,000+ troops?

I don't recall him ever saying he would increase troop levels by 50,000.

Please, I'll answer any question you ask that has a real answer or one that could clarify something for you. I'm not a 100% Obama apologist. I'm against the names some of you throw around me and others, and towards other politicians.

[Kade]

Most people are so dam stupid that they support a candidate without researching him and only going by what he says in his speeches.

Almost like calling someone a socialist because of what he says in his speeches....
Or because one doesn't know what a socialist is...
Or because one thinks its a handy one-liner to use.

[Broadlighter]

Want to know the truth? Maybe you can't handle the truth! :p

The MSM marginalized and ignored RP's campaign. So most people didn't know who he was and so they didn't vote for him. And everything they saw of him was negative, every interview was a load of diatribe. It's because the MSM is a corporate interest that picks their own candidates.

Is that a conspiracy? I saw that with my own eyes!

Guess what?

Obama's socialists are the ones that pulled that "racist newsletters" thing. It was a plan carried out by THEM! See how vicious socialists can be? We're not even out of the primaries andthey go right after Ron Paul in a different party. Why? because they know he's the only one that can beat their guy, they know he stands for freer markets and they don't want that.

They're scum.

Is COMMUNISM evil? No. It's a flawed system, I have no "beef" with it. Socialism can only work if it's voluntary, like a commune atmosphere. Those are good. People need to be free to leave when they want to.

Are COMMUNISTS evil? Not all. Many are just brainwashed. The rest are just evil. They don't care if free markets work, they want what they want and they are a cancer in this society All of the regulation and taxation originates from them and their professors that brainwash students to buy into their crap at the MAINSTREAM universities, while the free market economists are stuck somewhere near fringe and obscurity.

If Obama is their man, then I hope Hillary wins their nomination. Go hilldog! Do I support her? no lol but at least the communists aren't lining up behind her, so that's a plus in my book!

Joseph, where did you get that Obama supporters pulled out the racist newsletters story? I thought it was Eric Dondero and the Neo-con bloggers that came up with that. The first news of it in the MSM came from Fox as I recall.

[Aratus]

in march, obama drew in $40 million plus!
in march, ms. clinton drew in $20 million plus!

them dems did a likewise of sorts in February!
$50,ooo,ooo verses $25,ooo,ooo i believe!

In the context of a sleek internet driven political machine,
obama got twice as much money via a great number
of smaller amounts!!! barack has an edge, hillary doesn't!
call this a pattern! toss in the lack of awareness in the top
levels of the G.O.P to the discontent in the ranks, and
the next few months will re-write political history!!!

[Nirvikalpa]

I don't recall him ever saying he would increase troop levels by 50,000.

Please, I'll answer any question you ask that has a real answer or one that could clarify something for you. I'm not a 100% Obama apologist. I'm against the names some of you throw around me and others, and towards other politicians.

He said he wants troops to continue to stay in Iraq to protect our embassy - and to continue to attack Al Qaida.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Also:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga/


Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically around the world in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That’s why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

[Aratus]

william mckinley ran a brilliant campaign against eugene debs.
franklin delano roosevelt feared both norman thomas and huey long.
william jennings bryan actually almost walked on water in 1896 and was ignored...
the above was almost an april fools day prank here by moi! a long lost
edison flic showing senator W.J.B from nebraska walkin' on water...

[Kade]

He said he wants troops to continue to stay in Iraq to protect our embassy - and to continue to attack Al Qaida.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Also:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga/

Those links make no mention of an expansion of troops into Iraq. If anything you continue to prove that you are not reading anything about the issues, and nit-picking whatever you think suits you.

It appears Obama is going to expand the size of the military, not the presence in Iraq. I'm against expansion, but his way of doing so, through service as payment for college, is not entirely contrary to some of my beliefs.

[Aratus]

as to numbers, obama does have a nice fuzzy logic...
the mutually contradictory self evident truths. the public
is upset over the war. we of course are an empire.
how can caesar pull legions with a dignity? how
can caesar budget? especially if the office is
not due to primogeniture! we are in a vast
sea of discontent. we as a people seek
an answer, a direction! now! now!

[Kade]

in march, obama drew in $40 million plus!
in march, ms. clinton drew in $20 million plus!

them dems did a likewise of sorts in February!
$50,ooo,ooo verses $25,ooo,ooo i believe!

In the context of a sleek internet driven political machine,
obama got twice as much money via a great number
of smaller amounts!!! barack has an edge, hillary doesn't!
call this a pattern! toss in the lack of awareness in the top
levels of the G.O.P to the discontent in the ranks, and
the next few months will re-write political history!!!


The argument and debate appears to be that Obama does not have a grassroots that is as effective as Ron Pauls.

I disagree.

First they say I'm wrong.
Then they call me a socialist.
Then they blame the media (which would negate me being wrong?)
Then they are back to calling me a socialist.

Regardless, I'm still correct. His money comes from millions of small donors.
Sheeples or not, this is the voice of America, against the fat cats and the fascist right. It is the organized youth. They can insult them all they want, they are the future leaders.

[arKangel]

Obama’s International Socialist Connections (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-international-socialist-connections/)
Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.

Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.

:mad:

[Aratus]

yes... obama's money is greatly as in above 90% from SMALL donors!
he has had another successful month if you view things happily in terms of
bill + hillary clinton's solid marriage NOW becoming a vital part of the strategy
at this point in time. mcCain's people are more focused on WHO the dem is to be...
this is why the nice neat news stories about semi-unwashed ruffians doing something
libertarian at a g.o.p grassroots level can crop up quicker than you can say hemp!!!

[Nirvikalpa]

Those links make no mention of an expansion of troops into Iraq. If anything you continue to prove that you are not reading anything about the issues, and nit-picking whatever you think suits you.

It appears Obama is going to expand the size of the military, not the presence in Iraq. I'm against expansion, but his way of doing so, through service as payment for college, is not entirely contrary to some of my beliefs.

Excuse me? This is the first time I posted in this thread. So what exactly do you mean I continue to to prove I am not reading anything...?


I'm against expansion, but his way of doing so, through service as payment for college, is not entirely contrary to some of my beliefs.

So that's fair... blood for money for college? What's the use of college if you come home with only a torso?

And you said "he has not mentioned he would increase troop levels by 50,000."

You DID NOT say 'increase troop levels in IRAQ by 50,000' and neither did amonasro.


I don't recall him ever saying he would increase troop levels by 50,000.

I gave you the evidence you asked for.

[nbhadja]

The argument and debate appears to be that Obama does not have a grassroots that is as effective as Ron Pauls.

I disagree.

First they say I'm wrong.
Then they call me a socialist.
Then they blame the media (which would negate me being wrong?)
Then they are back to calling me a socialist.

Regardless, I'm still correct. His money comes from millions of small donors.
Sheeples or not, this is the voice of America, against the fat cats and the fascist right. It is the organized youth. They can insult them all they want, they are the future leaders.

What will he do to change things?


Or Is he a hired Puppet?


A puppet, just like Bush, Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary, McCain. If CNN and FOX hype you up, your a war mongering idiot. Period.

Obama has said:

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama2aug02,1,1165056.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations . (and dramtically increase the military size)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/obama_says_pakistan_must_act_against_taliban/

Obama stated that as President he would consider military action in Pakistan in order to attack al-Qaeda, even if the Pakistani government did not give approval.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm

He was not in office to vote for the iraq war, but he voted to fund it for over 300 billion dollars.

Obama also will not guarantee a Iraqi troop pullout until at least 2013. http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/content/2013/obamarecord/

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called a threat to all of us.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

Oh and he refuses to mention the trillions of dollars of debt this nation is in and how he will get the money to create his big spending programs (like giving each college student 4000 dollars). Cough cough PRINT THE MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE cough cough.....inflation......

[Kade]

What will he do to change things?


Or Is he a hired Puppet?


A puppet, just like Bush, Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary, McCain. If CNN and FOX hype you up, your a war mongering idiot. Period.

Obama has said:

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama2aug02,1,1165056.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations . (and dramtically increase the military size)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/obama_says_pakistan_must_act_against_taliban/

Obama stated that as President he would consider military action in Pakistan in order to attack al-Qaeda, even if the Pakistani government did not give approval.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm

He was not in office to vote for the iraq war, but he voted to fund it for over 300 billion dollars.

Obama also will not guarantee a Iraqi troop pullout until at least 2013. http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/content/2013/obamarecord/

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called a threat to all of us.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

Oh and he refuses to mention the trillions of dollars of debt this nation is in and how he will get the money to create his big spending programs (like giving each college student 4000 dollars). Cough cough PRINT THE MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE cough cough.....inflation......

I don't know. I'm not a 100% supporter. I would prefer to see Ron Paul in the presidency.

I just have three choices, so I informed myself.

[nbhadja]

Kade, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

Obama gets a large percent of his donations from lobbyists. Yes he says he does not but that does not make it true. He is a liar.

[Kade]

I gave you the evidence you asked for.

I took it to mean expansion into Iraq. If military and civil service increases the number of troops as a result, I'm okay with that. It's not as bad as a foreign war that had no bearing on terrorism.

Again, I'm not a full supporter. I'm just straightening out the fallacies.

[nbhadja]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/

But the Illinois Democrat’s policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.

Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.



You wanna talk more facts Kade???

[Kade]

Kade, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

Obama gets a large percent of his donations from lobbyists. Yes he says he does not but that does not make it true. He is a liar.

That doesn't say large percentage.

In fact, with the numbers they give, that is less than 5%.

[Kade]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/

But the Illinois Democrat’s policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.

Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.



You wanna talk more facts Kade???

Yes, I do. So long as you stop pretending you are actually linking to anything of substance.

[Aratus]

for william jennings bryan to win that nomination, in 1896... it was an upset.
it was a total surprise. his backers then expected a likewise come the election!
neither john mccain or ms. hillary clinton has been corronated at all. in time, in the
next few months, you all could be told a vote for ron paul elects barack obama.
you may be told by old fashioned g.o.p people that its almost political suicide for
the republican party to desert john mccain in his hour of need! i see this looming!
i think the old time g.o.p guard underestimates barack obama and yearns for a
repeat of the 1990s all over again. we see the FED dropping its rates, i spotted a
eustace mullins thread. when eustance mullins seems totally cogent, REALLY worry...
we are looking at a set of banking controls not being there that were set in place
by FDR. our stock markets have few brakes for speculative bubbles or severe crashes...

[Kade]

for william jennings bryan to win that nomination, in 1896... it was an upset.
it was a total surprise. his backers then expected a likewise come the election!
neither john mccain or ms. hillary clinton has been corinated at all. in time, in the
next few months, you all could be told a vote for ron paul elects barack obama.
you may be told by old fashioned g.o.p people that its almost political suicide for
the republican party to desert john mccain in his hour of need! i see this looming!
i think the old time g.o.p guard underestimates barack obama and yearns for a
repeat of the 1990s all over again. we see the FED dropping its rates, i spotted a
eustace mullins thread. when eustance mullins seems totally cogent, REALLY worry...
we are looking at a set of banking controls not being there that were set in place
by FDR. our stock markets have few brakes for speculative bubbles or severe crashes...

Agreed. I would still prefer to see Obama over Clinton or McCain.

[nbhadja]

Yes, I do. So long as you stop pretending you are actually linking to anything of substance.

You are in denial. Look at his campaign's forms, it clearly even says that he takes lobbyist money.

Those are all facts I am linking. You are just denying them

Keep pimping up your war-mongering lobbyist-whore candidate Obama.

[Kade]

You are in denial. Look at his campaign's forms, it clearly even says that he takes lobbyist money.

Those are all facts I am linking. You are just denying them

Keep pimping up your war-mongering lobbyist-whore candidate Obama.

I'm in denial? I haven't said anything contradictory. You said LARGE percentage and you are wrong.

I'm not pimping for him, I'm decrying stupidity.

[Aratus]

mitt romney compulsively tossed in 42 million of his own money
so his spending could equal obama's and hillary clinton's... then he
quit the race. this is one of the bigger political stories this year.


ron paul and mike huckabee were never in the same spending range.
this makes the end phase of this race most interesting. mccain's comeback
included! big money drove the start of the race, small donations gave
obama a vigorish unlike the others in the race. ron paul's campaign is unique.

[nbhadja]

""n Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show."

5 percent, wtf are you talking about.

People, Kade is the perfect example of someone who just picks a candidate and defends blindly. There are thousands of facts you can look at, but you refuse to. Go research Obama.

[nbhadja]

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

[Aratus]

ron paul's sum plus huckabee's sum is almost equal to romney's own 42 million dollar decision!

[Aratus]

guilani had gotten 60 million dollars... and he obviously clearly spent it.

[Kade]

""n Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show."

5 percent, wtf are you talking about.

People, Kade is the perfect example of someone who just picks a candidate and defends blindly. There are thousands of facts you can look at, but you refuse to. Go research Obama.

You have got to be kidding me.... I never denied, nor has Obama denied, that he used that money for his State Senate seat. This is a presidential election, not a U.S. Senate seat, not a STATE SENATE seat. WTF is wrong with you?

Reading is your friend man, chill.

[Kade]

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

Okay, stop.

Here is the issue:

Obama has raised a LARGE percentage of his total money for the Presidential Race from Lobbyist.

Prove it.

[Aratus]

folks, if you suspect $10,ooo,ooo or $1,ooo,ooo can become quiet river~lettes of pure slush
via the ability to send TWO HUNDRED DOLLAR incriaments out to the faithful many, so as to circumvent
all bookkeeping, do enlighten me! its not impossible! yet we do have the official numbers!!!!

[nbhadja]

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.


Oh and what about this election then? He still does.

Oh and Small donation my ass:
Obama said in his first-quarter financial report that he received money from 104,000 donors, twice as many as Clinton, suggesting a disproportionate number of small contributions. But the Campaign Finance Institute said Obama still received 68% of his money from donations of $1,000 or more, compared with 86% for Clinton.

I am sure the military defense industry gives their war loving man Obama a ton of support.

[Kade]

Oh and what about this election then? He still does.

Oh and Small donation my ass:
Obama said in his first-quarter financial report that he received money from 104,000 donors, twice as many as Clinton, suggesting a disproportionate number of small contributions. But the Campaign Finance Institute said Obama still received 68% of his money from donations of $1,000 or more, compared with 86% for Clinton.

I am sure the military defense industry gives their war loving man Obama a ton of support.

You are an angry little fart aren't you?

Many of those first donations came from University Professors.

Obama has raised well over $100,000,000 with a 1,000,000 unique donors by the end of march.

People are giving money to him. His grassroots is successful, but please, continue to disagree.

I understand why you are angry, I would be to.

[nbhadja]

You are an angry little fart aren't you?

Many of those first donations came from University Professors.

Obama has raised well over $100,000,000 with a 1,000,000 unique donors by the end of march.

People are giving money to him. His grassroots is successful, but please, continue to disagree.

I understand why you are angry, I would be to.

Lmao, university professors?? How about lawyers.

Yes he does receive a lot of money from people now, but also has recieved millions from lobbyists this election alone. His built up his career by taking lobbyist money.

So you acknowledge that Obama is a war mongering liar (liar for who he says he opposes our foreign policy and also for how he says he accepts no money from lobbyists when he clearly does) yet you still support him??? Do you also support Bush then?

[Aratus]

BIG MONEY.
small donors.

USUALLY BIG MONEY
TOTALLY WINs OUT.

small donors are keepin'
Doctor Ron Paul alive...now.
Obama also has many small donors.

[Kade]

Lmao, university professors?? How about lawyers.

Yes he does receive a lot of money from people now, but also has recieved millions from lobbyists this election alone. His built up his career by taking lobbyist money.

So you acknowledge that Obama is a war mongering liar (liar for who he says he opposes our foreign policy and also for how he says he accepts no money from lobbyists when he clearly does) yet you still support him??? Do you also support Bush then?

I don't think he is war-mongering at all. Liar, sure. War-mongerer, that is a stretch, even for your belligerence.

[Aratus]

is obama a liberal flipflopper?
just as romney did a centrist flipflop? (or 2, or 3!)
mccain is more consistant...

[Aratus]

hillary clinton is very 'steel magnolia' set in her ways...

[Aratus]

huckabee would like to almost walk on water in 2012...

[Kade]

is obama a liberal flipflopper?
just as romney did a centrist flipflop? (or 2, or 3!)
mccain is more consistant...

McCain was once pro-choice.

[nbhadja]

I don't think he is war-mongering at all. Liar, sure. War-mongerer, that is a stretch, even for your belligerence.

How is he not a war mongering idiot??

He says he would (and that we should) put troops into Pakistan even without their permission.

He also says that no options should be taken off the table with Iran.

He also voted to fund the Iraq war for 1/3 trillion dollars when our country is trillions of dollars in depth (talk about a top priority for him).

He also voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

He wants to increase the size of the military by a good margin.

He says he will use military force anywhere around the world to attack terrorists.


Sounds very Bush like to me.

[Aratus]

good! a flipflop! we start on the good reporter's trail a la "uncle duke"...!

[Aratus]

obama, he's mccain's good bud!
hillary may agree to being his veep!

[Aratus]

jim ogonowski, who swore to get our troops home quicker than teddy kennedy
and john kerry both has got to be loopy! this is anti-war kerry and senator ted!
the republican guy who is a political novice who is running for a senate seat... kerry's!
methinks promices and heart do not insure a delivery nor an acting on the same!

[Aratus]

happy trails! i be back on the morrow!

[Kade]

How is he not a war mongering idiot??

He says he would (and that we should) put troops into Pakistan even without their permission.

He also says that no options should be taken off the table with Iran.

He also voted to fund the Iraq war for 1/3 trillion dollars when our country is trillions of dollars in depth (talk about a top priority for him).

He also voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

He wants to increase the size of the military by a good margin.

He says he will use military force anywhere around the world to attack terrorists.


Sounds very Bush like to me.

Because my understanding of War mongerer is a person who desire war for profit.

If you believe that is Obama, that is your opinion. I don't. I believe him. Hold me responsible if he is elected.

[constituent]

Unfortunately, it seems Obama is the grassroots king now

The campaign says he raised more than $40 million(in march alone) from more than 442,000, more than 218,000 of whom were giving for the first time.

If only Paul's support were this awesome, but again obama get a million times more free airtime than Paul:mad:

goodness, the return of ron paul fan?

[Banana]

Kade,

I couldn't help but notice how your responses are usually on the defensive, with occasional jabs to posters for being stupid, dogmatic or not being substantive.

Why don't you give some solid reasons for supporting Obama?

[nbhadja]

Because my understanding of War mongerer is a person who desire war for profit.

If you believe that is Obama, that is your opinion. I don't. I believe him. Hold me responsible if he is elected.

Fine you can believe whatever you want.

But the next time you see someone say Bush is not a war mongerer, you shouldn't argue cause he has the same foreign policies as Obama so you shouldn't think he is war mongering either.

[nbhadja]

Kade,

I couldn't help but notice how your responses are usually on the defensive, with occasional jabs to posters for being stupid, dogmatic or not being substantive.

Why don't you give some solid reasons for supporting Obama?

Hmm.............maybe because there are none, aside from his positive motivational speeches with no substance behind them. lol

[tomveil]

Hmm.............maybe because there are none, aside from his positive motivational speeches with no substance behind them. lol

There's lots of reasons to support Obama.

You guys are like "War-Mongering Liar CFR ZOMG", like there's a choice.

Like it or not, the race is coming down to Obama, Clinton, and McCain. All those are war-mongering liars and CFR members. Saying that you shouldn't support Obama because of that is just being ridiculous.

Myself, I'm voting for Ron Paul. But if somebody put a gun to my head and told me to choose the next president between the three people we have left, it's Obama in a heartbeat. At least we're not POSITIVE that he's going to screw everything up.

[amonasro]

Myself, I'm voting for Ron Paul. But if somebody put a gun to my head and told me to choose the next president between the three people we have left, it's Obama in a heartbeat. At least we're not POSITIVE that he's going to screw everything up.

I think most of of share these sentiments. If my state allows, I will write in Ron Paul otherwise I'll vote for the Libertarian candidate. However, the lesser of the "Presidential Trinity" at the moment is Obama, in my opinion, just because he's new to the political establishment and hasn't been corrupted as much yet. But that's not saying much considering his platform, which I disagree with almost 100%.

[nbhadja]

There's lots of reasons to support Obama.

You guys are like "War-Mongering Liar CFR ZOMG", like there's a choice.

Like it or not, the race is coming down to Obama, Clinton, and McCain. All those are war-mongering liars and CFR members. Saying that you shouldn't support Obama because of that is just being ridiculous.

Myself, I'm voting for Ron Paul. But if somebody put a gun to my head and told me to choose the next president between the three people we have left, it's Obama in a heartbeat. At least we're not POSITIVE that he's going to screw everything up.

I could never vote for someone who supports an interventionist foreign policy, amnesty, and the Iraqi war (Obama). I would vote for none.
This type of attitude is what keeps status quo.

[torchbearer]

Che Guevara Flag flown in houston office: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only&rss

The image on the flag is the "poster" i was talking about....

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080211ObamaCheHouston.jpg

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080211ObamaCheHouston2.jpg

:cool:

[tomveil]

I could never vote for someone who supports an interventionist foreign policy, amnesty, and the Iraqi war (Obama). I would vote for none.
This type of attitude is what keeps status quo.

Great, me neither! But it's hard to fault somebody who wants to make a decision between the people who have a realistic chance of being elected.

Hell, before this election, I never thought I'd be voting for a Republican from Texas. Funny how the world works :)

[tomveil]

I think most of of share these sentiments. If my state allows, I will write in Ron Paul otherwise I'll vote for the Libertarian candidate. However, the lesser of the "Presidential Trinity" at the moment is Obama, in my opinion, just because he's new to the political establishment and hasn't been corrupted as much yet. But that's not saying much considering his platform, which I disagree with almost 100%.

True. And I'd agree a lot more with his platform if we were actually in a healthy economy. At this point, though, I think that we need to get back "into the black" before we start talking about how to divide up the loot.

[Banana]

And to extrapolate on that "voting for lesser of evils"- consider this:

If we have a three way race where A and B are in close heat, and C is distant last. Let's say the polling was something like this:


A 44%
B 45%
C 11%

Now, if we put all C voters into B it looks like this:


A 44%
B 56%
C 0%

It seems as if B is the clear winner, but if no C voters voted for B, the B would win but only by 1% and it's not above 50%. As a consequence, B would have to be more cautious as a POTUS because he doesn't have the "national support" and will have to think hard about whether he should appeal to C bloc by revising his positions.

[arKangel]

There is no lesser of the three evils.
They are all equally corrupt in that they are all totally corrupt.

If anything, the most dangerous is Oprah-bammy, because he has already been coronated the winner by the MSM. It almost appears as if there are moles in this forum who are here to assuage our doubts as to the legitimacy of the upcoming farce in November. "Go back to sleep little sheep, one of your own thinks Obama is OK so that is why he won" ~ that is the consonance left in the wake of a socialist mole.

Reminds me much of the so-called right wing talk show hosts that will bash Shrillery but never ever the oprah-bomination, "why he is just such a nice guy!" They really do not even talk about the Republican strawman much anymore.

The sooner we get this message through to ourselves the better off we will be.

The truth is that we still have a very good chance of taking this thing all the way to the convention an defeating the MSM. A very good chance.

Dr. Ron Paul is the only choice!

[LibertyEagle]

Because my understanding of War mongerer is a person who desire war for profit.

If you believe that is Obama, that is your opinion. I don't. I believe him. Hold me responsible if he is elected.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I recall you saying that you are a conservative Republican. If that is so, how on earth could you support Obama? He's a big government socialist.

Please explain your rationale. Thanks.

[rockandrollsouls]

Great, me neither! But it's hard to fault somebody who wants to make a decision between the people who have a realistic chance of being elected.

Hell, before this election, I never thought I'd be voting for a Republican from Texas. Funny how the world works :)

you're not voting for a republican...you're voting for obama. How are you making sense now?

[ClayTrainor]

Great, me neither! But it's hard to fault somebody who wants to make a decision between the people who have a realistic chance of being elected.

Hell, before this election, I never thought I'd be voting for a Republican from Texas. Funny how the world works :)

it's actually easy to fault someone for that. If you vote against your principles than you are a sell out... your playing right into the media's game.

man, i wonder how many votes rp has lost to obama idiots. Obama = no change at all whatsoever, none of the changes this revolution demands anyways.

vote for obama, mccain, or hillary and you deserve a draft and the economic hardship that will soon be among you americans... imho. :)

[satchelmcqueen]

funny thing is, now they (MSM) say that fund raising is a sign of who is in first. Paul was the king the last 2 quarters on the R side, but yet, it didnt mean anything....THEN!

[Jamsie 567]

Because my understanding of War mongerer is a person who desire war for profit.

If you believe that is Obama, that is your opinion. I don't. I believe him. Hold me responsible if he is elected.


First off I think you need to find the Obama forums this is the RonPaulforums nobody here cares about Obama 5 dollar. You are preaching to the wrong choir.

I seen enough to not like this guy his voting record sucks he lacks experiance. He talks about change but does not talk about any real issues. He is 100% fake I can't wait to see the FEC reports.

Here are his top 2 mistakes he is not worthy to be my president.

1.The NAFTA blunder: Obama's top economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, met with a Canadian official and assured him that his candidate's position on NAFTA was just for political consumption

2. Obama's ties to Rezko: '' This man has been a longtime friend and fundraiser for Obama. He also helped Obama buy his house in Chicago. Obama claims that he wants to clean up government and get rid of the lobbyists. Having ties to a man that is accused of extorting bribes and money laundering isn't a man that you should be associated with if your goal is trying to eliminate lobbyists.

((OWNED))

[familydog]

Because my understanding of War mongerer is a person who desire war for profit.

If you believe that is Obama, that is your opinion. I don't. I believe him. Hold me responsible if he is elected.

Obama's foreign policy advisor is Zbigniew Brezinski. If that doesn't tell you how he feels on foreign policy, you're hopeless.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[Kade]

Kade,

I couldn't help but notice how your responses are usually on the defensive, with occasional jabs to posters for being stupid, dogmatic or not being substantive.

Why don't you give some solid reasons for supporting Obama?

It's hard to respond to so many negative and oft ridiculous posts. I do have to be defensive, it's easy to send someone a volley of misguided and absurd one-liners that distort reality, and often they require time to dissect.

I like Obama because I think he is honest.
I do believe he will end the war.
He believes in market solutions to most problems.
He is a masterful politician (figure this out for your self, ie why this matters)
He is a strong defender of civil liberties, free speech laws, second amendment rights, and many other individual liberties, including ones retained by the people, reproductive rights, civil unions, etc.
He also has no real plan to increase the budget, rather to spend the money elsewhere, notably away from massive defense spending. (education, science and research)
His middle of the road take on faith is going to be required to heal some of the deep wounds this country is taking from the culture war.
He will end faith-based initiatives
He wants to end affirmative action. (as noted in his book)
I agree with the type of judges he considers paragons of justice, (Brandeis, Blackmun)
He promises to end no-bid federal contracts.
Voted to end the debt limit increase.

If he does not overturn the executive orders and the Military Commissions act and the Patriot Act in his first few weeks in office, then I am wrong about him.

So, there you have it. Am I happy with my choice? No. I am weighted most on two issues, the loss of privacy and civil liberties, and massive defense spending. Those two issues determine my choice for president.


Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I recall you saying that you are a conservative Republican. If that is so, how on earth could you support Obama? He's a big government socialist.

Please explain your rationale. Thanks.

I am a proud liberal (some here say I'm a classical liberal, although I'm not into playing word games) and I've never said otherwise. I would never put the moniker "conservative" in front of my name. Conservative to means stands for stagnation.

I've given my reasons, and although they might not entirely outweigh the negatives, I don't like my other two choices. If Ron Paul ran a third party, that would change things.

I know that criticism of the campaign is not well taken here, but I thought that Ron Paul and his campaign missed a golden opportunity, and place most of the blame on his impotent campaign managers.

This thread was about Obama grassroots.

He does have a strong grassroots movement. They go door to door and teach people how to vote in caucuses. They have used technology to organize, and they have taken over many of the college campuses in this country. You can give the credit to the media, you can blame whoever you want, but Obama does have a real grassroots, and it is strong.

I've not said anything that wasn't true. If anything we should be respectful of where we are willing to distort reality for our own causes.

The founding fathers were almost never in agreement about anything. It took over a year of fighting just to agree to declare independence; WHILE blood was being shed in Massachusetts!

The arguments between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists mirrors todays arguments. Who is to really say what side is 100% right. I tend towards moderation and common sense. I think the federal government is a powerful tool for progress, but I think it belongs to the people, first and foremost, and I think it needs to be tightly bound by principles that promote liberty and freedom for individuals.

For instance, I support federal money for technology and research. So did Jefferson.

I support the disarming of the federal reserve and I support the end to corporate welfare before the end of social welfare. (one costs nearly a trillion, the other a few billion)

I think judicial review has saved this country. I think it is wrong and should not be necessary.

I believe freedom is maximized by allowing the most possible on local levels, and then I read about some backasswards Kansas town injecting their kids with the plague, or some moronic local police force strip searching 15 year old girls.

This is a complicated world. It would takes years to explain what I have learned in my travels. I was born in Virginia, and I've lived in California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Indiana, Florida, and Rhode Island. I've been educated in the South, the West Coast, the Midwest, and the North.

I don't know the answers, and I don't pretend to... I know what I'm willing to fight for, and it isn't the garbage that is this current administration, and it isn't what McCain is selling.

Does that answer your questions? But please, continue to employ the one-liners.

[nbhadja]

Sadly like 99 percent of the country, you seem to only form your opinions off of his speeches (which don't matter at all) instead of his voting record.

[familydog]

Sadly like 99 percent of the country, you seem to only form your opinions off of his speeches (which don't matter at all) instead of his voting record.

But he said it, it must be true! ! ! ! :):eek::D

It's nice to see an Obama supporting actually spell out why he/she likes him, rare as it is. The hypocricies are astounding though.

[Kade]

Sadly like 99 percent of the country, you seem to only form your opinions off of his speeches (which don't matter at all) instead of his voting record.

Then what does matter? Did Thomas Jefferson have anything but his writing? Was Franklin to be judged on his inventions?

Ron Paul got my attention with his writing and his speeches. What does matter to you?

[Kade]

But he said it, it must be true! ! ! ! :):eek::D

You people are untenable. You didn't even read what I wrote, and this is proven by the fact that you responded EXACTLY as I spelled out how you would.

[familydog]

You people are untenable. You didn't even read what I wrote, and this is proven by the fact that you responded EXACTLY as I spelled out how you would.

Actually I did read what you wrote, and I always do. Chill out and thanks for trying

[nbhadja]

Then what does matter? Did Thomas Jefferson have anything but his writing? Was Franklin to be judged on his inventions?

Ron Paul got my attention with his writing and his speeches. What does matter to you?

Thomas Jefferson was pro CIVIL and ECONOMIC freedom and opposed interventionism, etc. His voting record indicates it. Same with the others.

Obama is not. Who cares what he says.

If I say I am opposed to the war yet all my voting indicates I am for the war then what difference is it what I say??? Words are nothing. It is all about action. Obama took his actions, and they resemble nothing close to his speeches.

[Kade]

Thomas Jefferson was pro CIVIL and ECONOMIC freedom and opposed interventionism, etc. His voting record indicates it. Same with the others.

Obama is not. Who cares what he says.

If I say I am opposed to the war yet all my voting indicates I am for the war then what difference is it what I say??? Words are nothing. It is all about action. Obama took his actions, and they resemble nothing close to his speeches.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Not even a decent choice of words.

[nbhadja]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Not even a decent choice of words.

What??? Why don't you look at his voting record, I have. Go look it up online.
Or are you too scared and will just deny it??? Go stick your head back in the sandbox.

[Andrew-Austin]

Why does this obamination of a thread still exist.. Big fucking deal one guy on this forum likes Obama, and does not mind excusing his corrupt political connections and interventionist foreign policy stances..

[Kade]

What??? Why don't you look at his voting record, I have. Go look it up online.
Or are you too scared and will just deny it??? Go stick your head back in the sandbox.


I'm well aware of his voting record. No man scares me, only the consistent beating of dogmatic ideology and the force it holds over free people.

[Nirvikalpa]

Don't even waste your time trying to convert him back. He has been saying negative things since November of 2007, with this post:



Well, I apologize. Honestly, I wasn't accustom to running into anyone with half a brain on these forums.

Stayed a long time talking to people with half a brain...

[Kade]

Don't even waste your time trying to convert him back. He has been saying negative things since November of 2007, with this post:



Stayed a long time talking to people with half a brain...

There are some really intelligent people here. Most of the people who have continued to respond to me negatively are not among them. What's your point?

[familydog]

There are some really intelligent people here. Most of the people who have continued to respond to me negatively are not among them. What's your point?

Maybe if you wouldn't make broad statements like he is for market solutions to most of our problems, without giving any evidence to back it up, your posts wouldn't seen in such a negative light. Riddle me this, why did he gladly accept Brezenski as his foreign policy advisor? If Ron Paul's foreign policy advisor was Kissinger, on what basis should we believe Ron Paul is honest when he advocates non-interventionism?

[Kade]

Maybe if you wouldn't make broad statements like he is for market solutions to most of our problems, without giving any evidence to back it up, your posts wouldn't seen in such a negative light. Riddle me this, why did he gladly accept Brezenski as his foreign policy advisor? If Ron Paul's foreign policy advisor was Kissinger, on what basis should we believe Ron Paul is honest when he advocates non-interventionism?

My guess is because he isn't too influenced by other people, and therefore doesn't really fear what kind of influence they might have.

Also it should be corrected that Brzezinski is not his only foreign policy advisor.

[Kade]

Maybe if you wouldn't make broad statements like he is for market solutions to most of our problems, without giving any evidence to back it up, your posts wouldn't seen in such a negative light. Riddle me this, why did he gladly accept Brezenski as his foreign policy advisor? If Ron Paul's foreign policy advisor was Kissinger, on what basis should we believe Ron Paul is honest when he advocates non-interventionism?

You don't want quotes from his speeches, so how am I suppose to defend what I believe he will be, or do?

I'm only clarifying my own position, and in return defending the OP's idea that Obama's grassroots has beat Ron Pauls...

[familydog]

You don't want quotes from his speeches, so how am I suppose to defend what I believe he will be, or do?

I'm only clarifying my own position, and in return defending the OP's idea that Obama's grassroots has beat Ron Pauls...

My point is that you're making claims, that can't be backed up by his record. I own his book Audacity of Hope, and I read it cover to cover. I listen to him speak at debates and rallys. I know what he says, and that isn't backed up by what he does. Also, advisors are advisors for a reason. Don't dodge the issue. If he didn't agree with what Brezinski believes, he wouldn't have put him on as an advisor. Advisors, you know, give advice. Advice that is the truth in the eyes of the advisor. It's not relevant whether or not he is the only advisor on Obama's staff.

If one wants to support Obama, that's fine. I respect that just like I except people to respect me for supporting Ron Paul. What bugs me if people who think he is something that he isn't, and then support him under false pretense...whether they know the reality or not.

[Kade]

My point is that you're making claims, that can't be backed up by his record. I own his book Audacity of Hope, and I read it cover to cover. I listen to him speak at debates and rallys. I know what he says, and that isn't backed up by what he does. Also, advisors are advisors for a reason. Don't dodge the issue. If he didn't agree with what Brezinski believes, he wouldn't have put him on as an advisor. Advisors, you know, give advice. Advice that is the truth in the eyes of the advisor. It's not relevant whether or not he is the only advisor on Obama's staff.

If one wants to support Obama, that's fine. I respect that just like I except people to respect me for supporting Ron Paul. What bugs me if people who think he is something that he isn't, and then support him under false pretense...whether they know the reality or not.

Honestly, I don't believe he is anything if not honest. I know what I am getting with Clinton, and I know what I'm getting with McCain.

It's like playing a game of hearts, and you have in your hand the Ace of Clubs, the Ace of Diamonds, and the Queen of Spades. You know for certain the two aces are taking the trick. The Queen could lose you the game, but there is a chance you won't end up with it.... bad analogy maybe, but... you get the point.

I'm only defending that I'm not an idiot for throwing my support behind Obama, regardless of how how I'm painted.


I also appreciate your more relaxed tone with me, thank you.

[lasenorita]

Honestly, I don't believe he is anything if not honest. I know what I am getting with Clinton, and I know what I'm getting with McCain.
So, basically, you think ignorance is bliss when it comes to Sen. Obama? He may be honest, he may not be. But when I come across articles like "Obama Laundry List of Lies" (http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/?p=69), I tend to think the latter.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

So, basically, you think ignorance is bliss when it comes to Sen. Obama? He may be honest, he may not be. But when I come across articles like "Obama Laundry List of Lies" (http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/?p=69), I tend to think the latter.

Yeah, and he's a socialist! Let me make it nice and clear for you: if you support Obama, you're supporting socialism.

Yeah! And if you support McCain, then you support fascism!

And if you support Hillary, then you support corporate lobbyists and politics of usual! or you're just a man-hating feminazi, take your pick! :p

[lasenorita]

The campaign says he raised more than $40 million(in march alone) from more than 442,000, more than 218,000 of whom were giving for the first time.

Yes, it's undoubtedly true that Sen. Obama has plenty of donors. However, not all of his dollars come from small donors. They're from the wealthy, the lawyers and the lobbyists, their clients and relatives... Oh, and from bundlers (http://www.stop-obama.org/?p=460) too.

According to the article Obama’s Myth of Popular Money (http://www.stop-obama.org/?p=527), Sen. Obama has actually received millions more from wealthy donors than Sen. Clinton since January 2008. On the other hand, Ron Paul receives a clear majority of his funding from ordinary citizens, and his campaign depends more heavily on those who give $200 or less.

But, you know, it's really not about whose grassroots is "better". If we bravely continue with our efforts to help change our country's course to financial collapse (no thanks to Senators like Obama, Clinton, and McCain) -- and somehow succeed, everyone wins!