Obama supporters pissed at ABC debate

[Brent Canada]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/comments?type=story&id=4666956

Gee, a presidential getting totally screwed by the mainstream media. Surely this would never happen.

[acptulsa]

The economy is scary and the awakening has begun. Paulites unite! We can lose our chains, or just miss our opportunity.

Once in a great while, the populace takes it seriously. This is our hour.

[Conza88]

Obama supporters = people who have some kind of potential, but really all they are is:


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/51010271_8eb05a336c.jpg

[rancher89]

Man, it's crazy out there! Neocons publicly stating that they would have voted for RP if they had thought he had a chance. Huckabee supporters arm in arm with Paulites.

OK, if the sun gets blotted out and the locusts show up, I'm outta here!

[Cinderella]

huckabee supporters are with us?? since when? i havent even noticed

[pcosmar]

huckabee supporters are with us?? since when? i havent even noticed

Huck's supporters were confused and deceived into thinking Huck was a conservative.
Obama supporters are just confused by the nebulous concept of "change".

[acptulsa]

Huck's supporters were confused and deceived into thinking Huck was a conservative.
Obama supporters are just confused by the nebulous concept of "change".

Catastrophe has a way of clarifying situations and sharpening the mind. Keep up the good work! The stars are aligning...

[Thrashertm]

I think it's more than just Obama's supporters that are upset with the way ABC handled the debate. It was an insult to voters to make it an episode of Hard Copy instead of talking about issues.

[acptulsa]

I think it's more than just Obama's supporters that are upset with the way ABC handled the debate. It was an insult to voters to make it an episode of Hard Copy instead of talking about issues.

Great truth but hardly news. When was the last substantive debate? 1976?

[Kade]

Obama supporters = people who have some kind of potential, but really all they are is:


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/51010271_8eb05a336c.jpg

I can't see that picture while at work, but I imagine it is offensive.

[acptulsa]

I can't see that picture while at work, but I imagine it is offensive.

Your basic chicken with its head chopped off. Don't go all bleeding heart on us, Kade--they used Photoshop to do the deed.

[Sandra]

I think ABC is now a part of FOX. :rolleyes:

[Kade]

Great truth but hardly news. When was the last substantive debate? 1976?

The League of Women Voters was the last nonpartisan debate moderator group.

[Kade]

Your basic chicken with its head chopped off. Don't go all bleeding heart on us, Kade--they used Photoshop to do the deed.

I'm a patriot and a liberal, not a bird hugger. I know why Obama gets a bad rap here, but there is a chance that you have but two choices only in this upcoming election, and I feel strongly that we don't need another Republican.

[yongrel]

I'm a patriot and a liberal, not a bird hugger. I know why Obama gets a bad rap here, but there is a chance that you have but two choices only in this upcoming election, and I feel strongly that we don't need another Republican.

The only advantage I see a democrat providing over a Republican is that it would neuter the religious right. And that's not enough for me to vote for Obama.

[acptulsa]

I'm a patriot and a liberal, not a bird hugger. I know why Obama gets a bad rap here, but there is a chance that you have but two choices only in this upcoming election, and I feel strongly that we don't need another Republican.

On the first part, I'm glad. I would hate for you to be deprived of the joys of fried chicken. On the second part, I still just don't see that there's enough difference between Obama and the other two stooges to comment on. So, in essence, we are fighting for a second choice--something other than another corporate shill hawking at least four more years of war.

Obama is saying 2012. McCain is saying a hundred years. Both are running for a four year term. What's the effective difference, again? Excuse me for not being sold by prettier rhetoric and a prettier face.

[Nirvikalpa]

Obama dug his own hole by saying people took his statement about the 'small town PA folk flocking to their guns and religion out of fear' wrong. You [b]NEVER[b] blame the people for anything, what was this man thinking? Apologize.

All I know is, country PA people are PISSED OFF - every person at my college who owns a farm or doesn't have a neighbor within 10 minutes of them were talking about it.

Good. :D This can only be good for us.

[angelatc]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/comments?type=story&id=4666956

Gee, a presidential getting totally screwed by the mainstream media. Surely this would never happen.

Oh yeah. But when it happened to our candidate, we were just whiners. Serves them right for not being awake enough to think that when it happens to one, it can happen at all.

[Kade]

The only advantage I see a democrat providing over a Republican is that it would neuter the religious right. And that's not enough for me to vote for Obama.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

There is a high chance that Obama will end the war.

McCain there is 0% chance.

Is my logic in this incorrect... If I promote voting for a third party member among my constituent, we may open the door for McCain.

[Kade]

On the first part, I'm glad. I would hate for you to be deprived of the joys of fried chicken. On the second part, I still just don't see that there's enough difference between Obama and the other two stooges to comment on. So, in essence, we are fighting for a second choice--something other than another corporate shill hawking at least four more years of war.

Obama is saying 2012. McCain is saying a hundred years. Both are running for a four year term. What's the effective difference, again? Excuse me for not being sold by prettier rhetoric and a prettier face.

Perhaps, I am taking a chance that Obama is not an idiot. We've had a moron for 8 years... I think Ron Paul is a smart guy, and I think Obama is a smart guy. I trust intelligent people.

[acptulsa]

I trust intelligent people.

If only this put us in the majority. I think that most voters don't and most of that majority never stops to look at the Cheneys behind the puppets. Even so--Nixon had a brain cell or two and look at the garden path he took us down...

[Truth Warrior]

Gee, I guess that the Obama folks now understand how we all felt about umpteen times. Where was their upset then? It all depends on whose ox is getting gored. :p Cuts both ways folks. What goes around comes around.

[AisA1787]

Perhaps, I am taking a chance that Obama is not an idiot. We've had a moron for 8 years... I think Ron Paul is a smart guy, and I think Obama is a smart guy. I trust intelligent people.

Stalin was intelligent, too...

[Kade]

Gee, I guess that the Obama folks now understand how we all felt about umpteen times. Where was their upset then? It all depends on whose ox is getting gored. :p Cuts both ways folks. What goes around comes around.

Obama supporters seems to be very favorable towards Ron Paul... and I do think many of them have always noticed the bias treatment of the Good Dr from the MSM.

[angelatc]

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

There is a high chance that Obama will end the war.

McCain there is 0% chance.

Is my logic in this incorrect... If I promote voting for a third party member among my constituent, we may open the door for McCain.

Why do you insist on thinking that Obama will end the war? He hasn't said anything like that. What he has said is that we need to be involved in Darfur.

No way will I vote for a racist like Obama.

[Kade]

Stalin was intelligent, too...

He was, but you do realize that sentence is the paragon of logical fallacy, right?

[Kade]

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Seems to be the official position. I'm not too keen on it myself...

[NathanTurner]

Obama supporters should be pissed at the debate: his "silver tongue" misspoke on numerous occasions, and Clinton looked to be the better candidate. Of course, if you look at their voting record and their platform, there is little practical difference between them; and Obama has some serious baggage with regard to his racist church and his wife's college thesis promoting "black power" and why she is a "black nationalist." Not to mention that he's coming off as a rather elitist snob. I guess we in the middle class are clinging to our second amendment rights and the Constitution because we are "bitter" that we are just not as good as our upper-class betters. :rolleyes:

I don't see how anyone who is a libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, or anything in between could vote for either of them without seriously compromising their political views. I mean, at this stage the Republican nominee is for all intents and purposes decided; and we have Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum on the Democratic side to choose between; all three candidates are in the pockets of the rich elite that rules our "Democratic Oligarchy." It doesn't matter who is elected now; the field of potential candidates has been decided based on interests far removed from the American people.

By the way, did anyone notice that one of the questions in the debate last night was essentially, "How far would you go to protect Israel against such countries as Iran?" The frightening thing about it is that apparently candidates are now being decided on the basis of how they will use the American economy and war machine for the interests of the Zionists. Coupled with the footage of Obama catering to a group of Jews and their discussion of how his stance on Israel will affect their vote, I'm flabbergasted at the fact that the mainstream public actually allows our candidates to be decided on the basis of how beneficial they will be to the interests of foreign nations and their dual-citizenship agents.

Twilight-zone.

[acptulsa]

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Seems to be the official position. I'm not too keen on it myself...

I've heard numberous "official lines" on Obama's stance on Iraq over time and don't remember that one. To quote you: "Source?" And of course, in any case, it doesn't address his desire to step into Darfur or defend Israel from Iran, etc...

[Kade]

Obama supporters should be pissed at the debate: his "silver tongue" misspoke on numerous occasions, and Clinton looked to be the better candidate. Of course, if you look at their voting record and their platform, there is little practical difference between them; and Obama has some serious baggage with regard to his racist church and his wife's college thesis promoting "black power" and why she is a "black nationalist." Not to mention that he's coming off as a rather elitist snob. I guess we in the middle class are clinging to our second amendment rights and the Constitution because we are "bitter" that we are just not as good as our upper-class betters. :rolleyes:

I don't see how anyone who is a libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, or anything in between could vote for either of them without seriously compromising their political views. I mean, at this stage the Republican nominee is for all intents and purposes decided; and we have Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum on the Democratic side to choose between; all three candidates are in the pockets of the rich elite that rules our "Democratic Oligarchy." It doesn't matter who is elected now; the field of potential candidates has been decided based on interests far removed from the American people.

By the way, did anyone notice that one of the questions in the debate last night was essentially, "How far would you go to protect Israel against such countries as Iran?" The frightening thing about it is that apparently candidates are now being decided on the basis of how they will use the American economy and war machine for the interests of the Zionists. Coupled with the footage of Obama catering to a group of Jews and their discussion of how his stance on Israel will affect their vote, I'm flabbergasted at the fact that the mainstream public actually allows our candidates to be decided on the basis of how beneficial they will be to the interests of foreign nations and their dual-citizenship agents.

Twilight-zone.

Obama is vague because it requires that to be elected. I've said this numerous times... notice, that in questions of real substance, (not reverend issues, bosnia crap) Obama answered appropriately.

He knows the Constitution does not allow the President to go off to foreign wars at will, and he spoke as such. Clinton responded that an attack on Israel would be followed by an immediate attack by the US.

Obama didn't... he just knows better. Please read more about him..not the public opinion that his campaign has done a good job of shaping... that is all I'm asking.

Not his friends.
Not his organizations.
His writing and his speeches... especially early... but whatever... I suppose that stuff doesn't matter.. (bob barr.)

[Kade]

I've heard numberous "official lines" on Obama's stance on Iraq over time and don't remember that one. To quote you: "Source?" And of course, in any case, it doesn't address his desire to step into Darfur or defend Israel from Iran, etc...

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

[crazyfingers]

Obama is just another CFR stooge who will act in the best interest of globalists forces, not America.

"God Damn America" is right...

[Kade]

Obama is just another CFR stooge who will act in the best interest of globalists forces, not America.

"God Damn America" is right...

I would like a source that says without contrivance that Obama is a member of the CFR.

[crazyfingers]

I would like a source that says without contrivance that Obama is a member of the CFR.

He admits it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6HjTiOu2U0

Just because he tries to turn it into a big joke ("I don't know a secret handshake or anything") or act like it's an inconsequential organization, doesn't change the fact that he is involved with it.

[Kade]

He admits it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6HjTiOu2U0

Just because he tries to turn it into a big joke ("I don't know a secret handshake or anything") or act like it's an inconsequential organization, doesn't change the fact that he is involved with it.

Can't see it. He himself admits he is a member? You know what without contrivance means right? I have a sinking feeling you don't...

[Kade]

He is not on the memberlist. He is an event speaker.

http://www.cfr.org/bios/11603/barack_obama.html

[crazyfingers]

Can't see it. He himself admits he is a member? You know what without contrivance means right? I have a sinking feeling you don't...

"I don't know..uh... if I'm an official member. I've spoken there before."

WTF does it matter if he's an "official" member??

And I know what "contrivance" means, and it doesn't really apply here.

Man I wish there was some way to get rid of the Obama trolls around here. This is a limited government movement. He is a big government, globalist liberal.

[Kade]

"I don't know..uh... if I'm an official member. I've spoken there before."

WTF does it matter if he's an "official" member??

And I know what "contrivance" means, and it doesn't really apply here.

Man I wish there was some way to get rid of the Obama trolls around here. This is a limited government movement. He is a big government, globalist liberal.

It applies, that is absolutely contrived.

[crazyfingers]

It applies, that is absolutely contrived.

Yes, the words that come out of Obama's mouth - in fact the whole image that he has carefully cultivated - are absolutely contrived. We are in agreement.

1. to plan with ingenuity; devise; invent: The author contrived a clever plot.
2. to bring about or effect by a plan, scheme, or the like; manage: He contrived to gain their votes.

PS: I'm done arguing. You are an Obama troll. Go destroy some other country, thanks.

[acptulsa]

He is not on the memberlist. He is an event speaker.

His wife's membership isn't sufficient for you to consider him tied to the organization? This source isn't good enough for you?

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/290807_obama_cfr.html

And where the hell did you find a member list? I'm sure we'd all love to see it...

[Truth Warrior]

"By their fruits ( and agenda following ), ye shall know them." :D

[CurtisLow]

Man I wish there was some way to get rid of the Obama trolls around here. This is a limited government movement. He is a big government, globalist liberal.

+1

CFR

http://presidentialcandidates.wetpaint.com/

[NathanTurner]

Obama has essentially the same stance on Israel that Hillary does, and I've read numerous articles in the Israeli media trying to reassure their Zionist readers that this is the case. Democrats and lately, Neocon Republicans have to walk the line in order to get Jewish funds and support, and this much is admitted as fact in numerous Israeli publications. Here is an article on Obama and whether or not he is continuing the pro-Israeli policy of Democrats:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=832667&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

Here are a couple of excerpts:


"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction."


"The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."


"We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs." (More Israeli aid from the tax dollars of us "bitter" middle class.)

Here is his middle east foreign policy; notice that it starts and ends with Israel and its security:


"Our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region. That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point."

On Jewish money and his support for Israel:


"It is no secret that Jewish money plays a big role in the Democratic Party. 'They don't have the number [of voters], but have the means to get the voters,' a prominent Democratic operative told me last week. That's why I told the told the NY Sun that 'I don't think his real motive is to win votes. It's, of course, Jewish money.' Will he get it? Here's one clue. Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida is going to co-chair Barack Obama's White House drive in the state. And why would Wexler do such thing? Because 'I have spoken with Barack to discuss the dangers facing our ally Israel, and I am convinced there will be no stronger supporter of Israel than President Obama', his statement says."

On the debate just last night, he said:


Obama answered that "it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one whose security we consider paramount." He said that would be an act of aggression that he would consider "unacceptable," and that "the United States would take appropriate action." (I wonder what that "appropriate action" would be? And it's very reassuring to see that he considers Israel "paramount" in the region.)


The Illinois senator stressed that he would "take no option off the table" when it comes to preventing Iran from attaining a nuclear weapons program.... Obama said one of his "top priorities" as president would be "to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians" and that, "I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons."

This was taken from http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208356969587&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


With all selling out to Israel aside, we have to keep in mind that Obama also favors negating our right to bear arms by exceedingly harsh gun control laws, such as banning all semi-automatic firearms.

As far as his racist past not being a factor, I'm sure the likes of David Duke would have to disagree with you; it certainly is a factor when running for public office. Who would vote for a man that has the support of black militant Farrakhan, who believes that white people are "inherently evil" and "subhuman," and who is part of an organization that professes an "Africa first" policy in social and political life?

It seems as though our common sense and libertarian ideals have flown out the window with Dr. Paul's nomination.

[sratiug]

Obama dug his own hole by saying people took his statement about the 'small town PA folk flocking to their guns and religion out of fear' wrong. You [b]NEVER[b] blame the people for anything, what was this man thinking? Apologize.

All I know is, country PA people are PISSED OFF - every person at my college who owns a farm or doesn't have a neighbor within 10 minutes of them were talking about it.

Good. :D This can only be good for us.

+1
The small town Pa folk to my knowledge are mostly white folks. Combine that remark with the preacher stuff and there is actually a chance Obama may not win.

[sratiug]

Perhaps, I am taking a chance that Obama is not an idiot. We've had a moron for 8 years... I think Ron Paul is a smart guy, and I think Obama is a smart guy. I trust intelligent people.

Then trust me when I tell you that it is not smart to trust the intelligent. A constitutional scholar insulting gun owners is not an example of intelligence.

[sratiug]

Obama supporters should be pissed at the debate: his "silver tongue" misspoke on numerous occasions, and Clinton looked to be the better candidate. Of course, if you look at their voting record and their platform, there is little practical difference between them; and Obama has some serious baggage with regard to his racist church and his wife's college thesis promoting "black power" and why she is a "black nationalist." Not to mention that he's coming off as a rather elitist snob. I guess we in the middle class are clinging to our second amendment rights and the Constitution because we are "bitter" that we are just not as good as our upper-class betters. :rolleyes:

I don't see how anyone who is a libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, or anything in between could vote for either of them without seriously compromising their political views. I mean, at this stage the Republican nominee is for all intents and purposes decided; and we have Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum on the Democratic side to choose between; all three candidates are in the pockets of the rich elite that rules our "Democratic Oligarchy." It doesn't matter who is elected now; the field of potential candidates has been decided based on interests far removed from the American people.

By the way, did anyone notice that one of the questions in the debate last night was essentially, "How far would you go to protect Israel against such countries as Iran?" The frightening thing about it is that apparently candidates are now being decided on the basis of how they will use the American economy and war machine for the interests of the Zionists. Coupled with the footage of Obama catering to a group of Jews and their discussion of how his stance on Israel will affect their vote, I'm flabbergasted at the fact that the mainstream public actually allows our candidates to be decided on the basis of how beneficial they will be to the interests of foreign nations and their dual-citizenship agents.

Twilight-zone.

Will the zionists among us recognize the truth in this post? I would be equally disgusted if the candidates said they would fight for Saudi Arabia. And I'm sure we would because of oil and Bush's investment ties to the Bin Ladens and Saudi Royals. But that question is not asked.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

Despite the impression some people give you, Obama is most definately NOT a substitute for Ron Paul.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nxnWi-7kV4Q

[DAFTEK]

//

[acptulsa]

That's right--if you're for giving the country to the Jewish people you're very semitic. Or, not being one yourself (I assume), pro-semitic.

[Truth Warrior]

Personally, I tend to think of it as the CSA, "Corporate States of Amerika".

[LibertyOfOne]

I wouldn't consider voting for him because.

1) He wants to raise capital gains tax.
2) He is willing to go to war with Iran yet the government is flat broke
3) His healthcare plan
4) His weak stance on the 2nd amendment
5) For his bill that gave away more money to the worthless U.N
6) His unwillingness to drastically cut federal programs.
7) He is hardly different compared to the others that are in the race.

[AisA1787]

He was, but you do realize that sentence is the paragon of logical fallacy, right?

Kade, first of all get off your high horse about logical fallacies, mostly because you don't know what you're talking about but also because you're really annoying. You said that Obama was intelligent, and that you would vote for him in part because you trust intelligent people. I merely pointed out that Stalin was also intelligent, like this:

"Stalin was intelligent, too."

That sentence is not a logical fallacy. At worst it is an unfounded opinion, even though it's generally accepted as being true. There is not any logic in it to be correct or incorrect. However, it is completely illogical for you to believe that (1) intelligent people are to be trusted merely because they are intelligent and (2) that Obama will get us out of this war. Both are simply not true.

If you're happy being a sheep, go ahead and believe both of these things. But please, I beg of you, don't drag the rest of us down with you by voting for Obama.

[Give me liberty]

Can someone answer me this question for me.



Do Obama supporters know any Obama policies? and if so , which ones?
What change do Obama supporters think he will bring? Or is it the change because of the race type?

Second, when will the voters learn brianwashed or not, learn that All of these people are with the elites?



Oh and Obmam hasnt said he will bring home the troops within 60 days.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

Well, at least threads like this make it easy to spot the people that still trust everything they see on the MSM.

[Kade]

Man I wish there was some way to get rid of the Obama trolls around here. This is a limited government movement. He is a big government, globalist liberal.

There is a way. You can censor me and ban me, that is, if I fit into your world view of what a "Obama Troll" is...

I've made my stances clear, they are not contrary to the most reasonable policies of an informed citizenry.

You take two options. That I am somehow wildly mislead in my assertions, which then would imply that there is no way for any member of the citizenry to obtain the proper amount of education or knowledge to satisfy what, no doubt, is an absurd level of orthodoxy to fit into your prerequisite one-liners for who is and who isn't a patriot, or you must sit, stewing in your own stench of half-thought punditry, and universalist inanity that decides to divide people by standards only a borderline personality disorder could understand.

Your choice chief, but tread softly on the grounds of suppressing dissent, that your opinion is debated and that your collective mob of yesmen show little if any ability to counter productive debate does little to weaken the claim I make, that I am, in fact, a member of the informed citizenry.

[Kade]

Can someone answer me this question for me.



Do Obama supporters know any Obama policies? and if so , which ones?
What change do Obama supporters think he will bring? Or is it the change because of the race type?

Second, when will the voters learn brianwashed or not, learn that All of these people are with the elites?



Oh and Obmam hasnt said he will bring home the troops within 60 days.

I would prefer a member of the intellectual elite over a member of the war-elite.

I don't know who would want an non-elite president, to be honest.

And yes, I am well versed on Obama's policies.

[Kade]

Kade, first of all get off your high horse about logical fallacies, mostly because you don't know what you're talking about but also because you're really annoying.

Your insight is breathtaking.

[Truth Warrior]

Perhaps while Obama was busy buying Penn TV ads, Clinton was busy renting ABC. :D ABC = All Bout Clinton.

[Kade]

Well, at least threads like this make it easy to spot the people that still trust everything they see on the MSM.

Or the people who can't decipher for themselves anything they read. I notice the variety of insults spewed towards liberals is exactly in line with the MSM version of a liberal.

[Give me liberty]

I wouldn't consider voting for him because.

1) He wants to raise capital gains tax.
2) He is willing to go to war with Iran yet the government is flat broke
3) His healthcare plan
4) His weak stance on the 2nd amendment
5) For his bill that gave away more money to the worthless U.N
6) His unwillingness to drastically cut federal programs.
7) He is hardly different compared to the others that are in the race.

Rolf!!!!! So Much for BIG

C.H.A.N.G.E

(Y.e.s W.e .Can) lamo! i am laughing so hard right now at how stuipd the people are.

[crazyfingers]

There is a way. You can censor me and ban me, that is, if I fit into your world view of what a "Obama Troll" is...

I've made my stances clear, they are not contrary to the most reasonable policies of an informed citizenry.

You take two options. That I am somehow wildly mislead in my assertions, which then would imply that there is no way for any member of the citizenry to obtain the proper amount of education or knowledge to satisfy what, no doubt, is an absurd level of orthodoxy to fit into your prerequisite one-liners for who is and who isn't a patriot, or you must sit, stewing in your own stench of half-thought punditry, and universalist inanity that decides to divide people by standards only a borderline personality disorder could understand.

Your choice chief, but tread softly on the grounds of suppressing dissent, that your opinion is debated and that your collective mob of yesmen show little if any ability to counter productive debate does little to weaken the claim I make, that I am, in fact, a member of the informed citizenry.

Barack Obama does not believe in Constitutionally limited government. The point of the "rEVOLution" is to restore Constitutionally limited government. No amount of your worthless posts will change those two facts.

[Kade]

Barack Obama does not believe in Constitutionally limited government. The point of the "rEVOLution" is to restore Constitutionally limited government. No amount of your worthless posts will change those two facts.

One-liners will never convince those who would rather think then simply be told...

My posts are not worthless, but I don't expect you to read them.

Obama is a Constitutional Law Professor, and I've read his lectures, he understands very well the separation of powers, and he means to reduce the executive branch.

[crazyfingers]

One-liners will never convince those who would rather think then simply be told...

My posts are not worthless, but I don't expect you to read them.

Obama is a Constitutional Law Professor, and I've read his lectures, he understands very well the separation of powers, and he means to reduce the executive branch.

Yes, it makes perfect sense to dismiss the truth because it is a "one-liner".

Obama may have been a Constitutional Law Professor. All that means is that he has extensive knowledge on how to subvert the law of the land. He obviously does not believe in a federal government restrained by it.

[Kade]

Yes, it makes perfect sense to dismiss the truth because it is a "one-liner".

Obama may have been a Constitutional Law Professor. All that means is that he has extensive knowledge on how to subvert the law of the land. He obviously does not believe in a federal government restrained by it.

You are an angry little turd, aren't ya?

So everyone student of the law, myself included, is excluded from this debate?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/253391,CST-NWS-prof12.article

[Truth Warrior]

One-liners will never convince those who would rather think then simply be told...

My posts are not worthless, but I don't expect you to read them.

Obama is a Constitutional Law Professor, and I've read his lectures, he understands very well the separation of powers, and he means to reduce the executive branch.
The main problem is the congressional, perpetual, never-ending, "law factory".<IMHO>

Why Limited Representative Government Fails
by Michael S. Rozeff
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff202.html

[crazyfingers]

You are an angry little turd, aren't ya?

So everyone student of the law, myself included, is excluded from this debate?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/253391,CST-NWS-prof12.article

Thank you for refuting my argument that Obama does not believe in a Federal government strictly limited by the Constitution. That puff peice from the Chicago Sun Times really opened up my eyes! :rolleyes:

I think you need to stay in law school. Your debating skills are quite subpar.

[Kade]

The main problem is the congressional, perpetual, never-ending, "law factory".<IMHO>

Why Limited Representative Government Fails
by Michael S. Rozeff
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff202.html

I agree, but I don't particularly think Professor Rozeff is a good source for such a consideration, law and economics are different fields.

[Kade]

Thank you for refuting my argument that Obama does not believe in a Federal government strictly limited by the Constitution. That puff peice from the Chicago Sun Times really opened up my eyes! :rolleyes:

I think you need to stay in law school. Your debating skills are quite subpar.

Positive assertions require evidence. I am merely saying that I don't see anything considerably glaring about his approach to the executive branch, compared to Clinton and McCain especially.

Why am I suppose to produce the evidence if you are making the positive claim? Show me why he is worse than Clinton or McCain.

[Truth Warrior]

I agree, but I don't particularly think Professor Rozeff is a good source for such a consideration, law and economics are different fields.

Tell 'em that in D.C. :D

[Kade]

Tell 'em that in D.C. :D

Touché

[AisA1787]

So everyone student of the law, myself included,

Oh sweet jesus, a law student who thinks he knows everything. That explains a lot...

I don't know what to say to you man, except please don't ever practice law. And read some of Bastiat's writing, not that you'll be persuaded by any of it, but I suppose there is always some hope...

[Truth Warrior]

Kade --

What's your take on Butler Shaffer?

Thanks!

[Kraig]

Positive assertions require evidence. I am merely saying that I don't see anything considerably glaring about his approach to the executive branch, compared to Clinton and McCain especially.

Why am I suppose to produce the evidence if you are making the positive claim? Show me why he is worse than Clinton or McCain.

Actually, it is you making the positive claim. People here generally think there is no major difference between the three, you think that's not true. That would require you (or someone) to sell us as to why he would be a decent choice, tell us why he is so different. We don't have to prove he is a bad choice, we are skeptical and have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. This is not innocent until proven guilty, we are choosing a president.

You don't chose a president simply because he lacks negative values, that is absurd, a boorish idiot who has nothing interesting to say or do would fit those standards. It really doesn't matter if people can "prove" his negative aspects or not, if there are no positive ones, he's not worth voting for. Regardless of that, people have been posting reasons why they don't like him - you don't accept them as good reasons, but stop acting like they haven't posted them. You want us to prove that he is a CFR member, you fail to realize that most of us don't care. For most of us the fact that he does indeed give speeches and associate with the CFR is enough reason for us not to trust him. We don't care if he is a "official member" or not, the fact that he associates with that group is enough reason to not want him to be in power of anything.

[pinkmandy]

Some "unconstitutional" viewpoints of Obama, from his website:


No Child Left Behind Left the Money Behind: The goal of the law was the right one, but unfulfilled funding promises, inadequate implementation by the Education Department and shortcomings in the design of the law itself have limited its effectiveness and undercut its support. As a result, the law has failed to provide high-quality teachers in every classroom and failed to adequately support and pay those teachers.



Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law.


Make Math and Science Education a National Priority: Obama will recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession and will support efforts to help these teachers learn from professionals in the field.


Support English Language Learners: Obama supports transitional bilingual education and will help Limited English Proficient students get ahead by holding schools accountable for making sure these students complete school.



Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: Barack Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.

What's constitutional about the federal govt intervening in education? The goal was the right one, but not enough money?

And he says he supports the free market.


Support Job Creation: Barack Obama believes we need to double federal funding for basic research and make the research and development tax credit permanent to help create high-paying, secure jobs.

High-paying, secure govt jobs? Yay! More bureaucrats!!!

Looking over his site we are looking at a major nanny state. Funny, under civil rights he doesn't mention the Constitution that I could see. Nor does he mention the patriot act though he did say he plans to expand hate crimes legislation. I looked under Homeland Security as well, no such mention.

There are so many things wrong with his platform. The size of govt would grow yet again and by default we lose more rights. He has plans to intervene in local communities and states where the Constitution does not authorize him to do so.

All you have to do is look at what powers the President has per our Constitution and you'll see that this man is not a friend of that document. Ron Paul doesn't want to run your life, Obama wants to be a big part of it.

[Kade]

Oh sweet jesus, a law student who thinks he knows everything. That explains a lot...

I don't know what to say to you man, except please don't ever practice law. And read some of Bastiat's writing, not that you'll be persuaded by any of it, but I suppose there is always some hope...

I don't disagree with Bastiat, Economic Sophisms was a masterpiece.

I never said I know everything, in fact, I do believe I've taken the opposite of that point awhile ago. This is all you have?

[Kade]

Actually, it is you making the positive claim. People here generally think there is no major difference between the three, you think that's not true. That would require you (or someone) to sell us as to why he would be a decent choice, tell us why he is so different. We don't have to prove he is a bad choice, we are skeptical and have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. This is not innocent until proven guilty, we are choosing a president.

You don't chose a president simply because he lacks negative values, that is absurd, a boorish idiot who has nothing interesting to say or do would fit those standards. It really doesn't matter if people can "prove" his negative aspects or not, if there are no positive ones, he's not worth voting for. Regardless of that, people have been posting reasons why they don't like him - you don't accept them as good reasons, but stop acting like they haven't posted them. You want us to prove that he is a CFR member, you fail to realize that most of us don't care. For most of us the fact that he does indeed give speeches and associate with the CFR is enough reason for us not to trust him. We don't care if he is a "official member" or not, the fact that he associates with that group is enough reason to not want him to be in power of anything.

I should take this opportunity to resort to the one-liners since this is all I've been handed from you folks. That's okay though, attacking someone who is sympathetic with your view is a glorious way of doing things. I realize I'm the last liberal not banned or having left on this forum, but this is no reason to jump on me for the defense of a candidate who I see as the lesser of three evils. I can go on for hours about this, but this is a philosophical argument, and it requires more than just simple "what ought to be the case" and more "what is the most I can do with the system I have" case.

It's one thing to promote the principles of economic and social liberty, it's another to attack someone for defending himself and his contemporaries for alternative and contrary opinions.

Now, I don't agree with Obama on a million different things... but at the same time, I am convinced, by his writing and his style, and yes, some of his speeches, that he is not as inept as the MSM, liberal and conservative, have painted him. He is not the great speaking "change" artist that the liberals say he is, and he is not the globalist liberal that conservatives call him. He is not an atheist, and he is not a Muslim. He is not a believer in the version of "God Damn America (not even in context) that his Reverend sputtered... in fact, you have done nothing but prove that none of you have looked beyond the media's interpretation of his policies and reasons. It isn't easy to explain Ron Paul to many people for the same reason, even though they are different people, and not very comparable.

I strongly believe that I have two choices in November. Obama has made it clear that he does not view the executive branch the same way that other Democrats and Republicans do... McCain has made it very clear that he thinks he is running for King of America.

[Kade]

Kade --

What's your take on Butler Shaffer?

Thanks!

Although I disagree with Shaffer's view of 9-11, I liken him to a modern Goldwater, and I don't particularly have a problem with his insight.

His understanding and view of chaotic systems, and specifically anarchistic and orderly dynamic systems is very in line with mine.

[Truth Warrior]

What's Obama's current ADA rating?

[Kade]

What's Obama's current ADA rating?

It's very high. =/


Man, I'm going to get CRUCIFIED here... but I like the ADA... =(

[Truth Warrior]

Although I disagree with Shaffer's view of 9-11, I liken him to a modern Goldwater, and I don't particularly have a problem with his insight.

His understanding and view of chaotic systems, and specifically anarchistic and orderly dynamic systems is very in line with mine.

Interesting and very curious.

Thanks!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/ebook/shaffer-ebook1.html

[Truth Warrior]

It's very high. =/


Man, I'm going to get CRUCIFIED here... but I like the ADA... =(

Luckily for you, I categorically oppose force, coercion and violence, on principle. :D

[Kade]

Luckily for you, I categorically oppose force, coercion and violence, on principle. :D

The ADA has been one of the most vocal critics of the war, from day one. They were formed specifically to combat the "Communist" leaders in the Democratic party... They are opposed to communism.

Also, their involvement in the civil rights movement and women's rights movement has always been my soft spot.

They are no ACLU, but I am after all, a liberal.

I stick with my libertarians brothers because the "left" side of the spectrum is flooded with big government and welfare statists.

[Truth Warrior]

The ADA has been one of the most vocal critics of the war, from day one. They were formed specifically to combat the "Communist" leaders in the Democratic party... They are opposed to communism.

Also, their involvement in the civil rights movement and women's rights movement has always been my soft spot.

They are no ACLU, but I am after all, a liberal.

I stick with my libertarians brothers because the "left" side of the spectrum is flooded with big government and welfare statists.

We're definitely using very different versions of the Nolan Chart, etc. :rolleyes: :)

[Kade]

We're definitely using very different versions of the Nolan Chart, etc. :rolleyes: :)

I'm guessing that is David Nolan's monster?

I'll go see where I place on the damn thing.... and what I think about it. I don't like labels myself, but if I must be... I would have called myself libertarian until I met some of the whackos on here.

[ARealConservative]

Obama supporters seems to be very favorable towards Ron Paul... and I do think many of them have always noticed the bias treatment of the Good Dr from the MSM.

Obama supporters are the most illinformed of all.

[Kade]

Obama supporters are the most illinformed of all.

If I allowed you to represent Ron Paul supporters alone, that title would be a welded crown upon your head.

[Kade]

Luckily for you, I categorically oppose force, coercion and violence, on principle. :D

Liberal Libertarian apparently. Can't say I disagree...

[crazyfingers]

I'm guessing that is David Nolan's monster?

I'll go see where I place on the damn thing.... and what I think about it. I don't like labels myself, but if I must be... I would have called myself libertarian until I met some of the whackos on here.

Yes, please don't call yourself a libertarian. A libertarian supports dismantling the federal government, not trying to "fix" it.

"Progressive" types have already stolen the word liberal from proponents of strictly limited government, and now they're trying to steal the word libertarian.

[Truth Warrior]

I'm guessing that is David Nolan's monster?

I'll go see where I place on the damn thing.... and what I think about it. I don't like labels myself, but if I must be... I would have called myself libertarian until I met some of the whackos on here.

In my long experience, most of the Democrat/liberal/progressive/statist/socialists don't much care for labels either. I think that I can easily understand why. :D

[Kade]

Yes, please don't call yourself a libertarian. A libertarian supports dismantling the federal government, not trying to "fix" it.

"Progressive" types have already stolen the word liberal from proponents of strictly limited government, and now they're trying to steal the word libertarian.

I'll call myself whatever the hell I want you sniveling shit.

[Kade]

In my long experience, most of the Democrat/liberal/progressive/statist/socialists don't much care for labels either. I think that I can easily understand why. :D

The chart looks like it separates Statist and Liberal.. I guess your chart is different.

[crazyfingers]

I'll call myself whatever the hell I want you sniveling shit.

http://www.obamaforums.com/chat/

I think you might feel more at home over there...

[Kade]

http://www.obamaforums.com/chat/

I think you might feel more at home over there...

I am more of a Ron Paul supporter.

I would tell you to go stick a broomstick up your ass, but I'm afraid it might hurt the gerbil.

[Truth Warrior]

The chart looks like it separates Statist and Liberal.. I guess your chart is different.

It tends to be a very soft border.<IMHO> My diametrical opposite on the chart is the hypothetical score of "Big Brother" personified.

[Kade]

It tends to be a very soft border.<IMHO> My diameterical opposite is the hypothetical score of "Big Brother" personified.

I have no earthly idea how any person could intellectually equate Chinese and Russian government with Liberalism. But that might be a failure of having too much education.

I understanding most of you are recovering Conservative whackjobs, but that's no excuse to continue to not think for yourselves. Drop the Fox News, step away from Rush, and look at the big picture.

[crazyfingers]

I am more of a Ron Paul supporter.

I would tell you to go stick a broomstick up your ass, but I'm afraid it might hurt the gerbil.

Oh is that why you shill for Obama every chance you get?

I think you need to grow up if you plan on becoming a lawyer. Childish ad hominem attacks don't make for a very substantive (or convincing) argument.

[Kade]

Oh is that why you shill for Obama every chance you get?

I think you need to grow up if you plan on becoming a lawyer. Childish ad hominem attacks don't make for a very substantive (or convincing) argument.

I respond in kind. I don't shill for Obama. I honestly don't like to see people using the same tactics they rail against. Most of the attacks on Obama are the same words coming out of Sean Hannity's mouth.

I'd rather Obama be attacked for his real policies, most of which I dislike, then labels slapped on him by the MSM.

[Kade]

Oh is that why you shill for Obama every chance you get?

I think you need to grow up if you plan on becoming a lawyer. Childish ad hominem attacks don't make for a very substantive (or convincing) argument.

I do find it ironic that after attacking me the way you have, you then ask me to grow up.

When I've taken softer tones with you, you didn't waste any time on jumping on some inane argument and one-liner. When you receive the same, you ask for clemency.

[Truth Warrior]

I have no earthly idea how any person could intellectually equate Chinese and Russian government with Liberalism. But that might be a failure of having too much education.

I understanding most of you are recovering Conservative whackjobs, but that's no excuse to continue to not think for yourselves. Drop the Fox News, step away from Rush, and look at the big picture.

Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, etc. = socialists all. Does that tie it together for you somewhat? How about "collectivists" all?

[Kraig]

I should take this opportunity to resort to the one-liners since this is all I've been handed from you folks. That's okay though, attacking someone who is sympathetic with your view is a glorious way of doing things. I realize I'm the last liberal not banned or having left on this forum, but this is no reason to jump on me for the defense of a candidate who I see as the lesser of three evils. I can go on for hours about this, but this is a philosophical argument, and it requires more than just simple "what ought to be the case" and more "what is the most I can do with the system I have" case.

It's one thing to promote the principles of economic and social liberty, it's another to attack someone for defending himself and his contemporaries for alternative and contrary opinions.

Now, I don't agree with Obama on a million different things... but at the same time, I am convinced, by his writing and his style, and yes, some of his speeches, that he is not as inept as the MSM, liberal and conservative, have painted him. He is not the great speaking "change" artist that the liberals say he is, and he is not the globalist liberal that conservatives call him. He is not an atheist, and he is not a Muslim. He is not a believer in the version of "God Damn America (not even in context) that his Reverend sputtered... in fact, you have done nothing but prove that none of you have looked beyond the media's interpretation of his policies and reasons. It isn't easy to explain Ron Paul to many people for the same reason, even though they are different people, and not very comparable.

I strongly believe that I have two choices in November. Obama has made it clear that he does not view the executive branch the same way that other Democrats and Republicans do... McCain has made it very clear that he thinks he is running for King of America.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am not attacking you. I am disagreeing with you, I think there is a difference. All I was trying to say was that if you wanted me to vote for Obama, or support him in favor of the other two, it would be up to you to give me positive reasons, not me to prove my negative ones. If this was not the case, and you were simply responding to being attacked by others, then I apologize for making that assumption.

It seems to me that your reasons leaning towards Obama center around the fact that he seems to be highly intelligent, I have to agree that he does. My distrust of him doesn't come from some belief that he is stupid, but a belief that he will not use his intelligence to serve me, the American people, the constitution, etc. His healthcare plan alone is enough to convince me of this, the fact that he wishes to spend my money to provide healthcare to those who have not earned it is enough of a king-style leader to turn my stomach. I really don't care at all about the stupid antics the media has accused him of, by proxy nonetheless. I'm not sure what would be worse in the presidential position, a good intentioned idiot or a malignant genius, but I am sure that I am not willing to choose between the two.

It is also my belief that any presidential candidate who is not willing to take serious efforts to end our destruction foreign policy, our destructive monetary policy, and our attack on civil liberties that put thousands in jail for victim-less crimes, will add nothing to our current problems outside of contributing to our own destruction. It really seems like you have a chip on your shoulder due to being "the last liberal not banned", and maybe that is due to you because of how you have been treated here - that I cannot say. But I have always made every effort to debate you fairly, honestly, and with respect to your intelligence. It seems to me that you prefer to lump me into some non-thinking category that you have placed most other people in this forum, I really don't appreciate that.

[Kade]

Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, etc. = socialists all. Does that tie it together for you somewhat? How about "collectivists" all?

Mussolini, Pot, and Hitler were Fascists.

Stalin and Mao were Communist/Marxist, some call it Stalinism.

Collectivist, perhaps, and many of our own Presidents were borderline as well, like FDR.

Liberal. No fucking way.

[ThePieSwindler]

I certainly see Kade's points on Obama, and although I personally don't see actually voting for Obama as having any sort of marginal benefit over not doing so (for many reasons), I do think Obama offers some interesting alternatives. He seems like he really does want to positively change the world; unfortunately, his prescriptions for such are in some cases short-sighted/typical welfare statist policy biases - and he certainly is no federalist with regards to a host of issues. As for gun rights, hopefully DC vs Heller will make a president's gun preferences irrelelvant. As for the overall business climate, Presidents really don't affect long term economic growth and prosperity much at all, though im not a big fan of increasing taxes on sources of wealth that I intend to use/access/attain within my lifetime.

I used to harbor some irrational hate for Obama and his supporters, mainly back when i was all about the Ron Paul campaign. Now that thats subsided, and ive investigated more - the majority of the Obama-specific supporters (as opposed to just general Democrats who prefer Obama - im talkin about the throngs of new young supporters) are true to the stereotypes, sure, but i also know alot of good, intelligent, genuine peolpe supporting him precisely because of his views that I disagree with - but it is certainly not a sea of shallowness while we are a reservior of wisdom. There is also discussion and debate to be had - Obama supporters are not necessarily "idiots". So now I see him more as your typical center-left Democrat, except with the twist that he might have a few very interesting extra net positives.

Also, if we are going to be debating the meaning of the term liberal forever, lets get it clear- it means alot of things in alot of different contexts. Kade seems to me like a classical liberal in the tradition of, say, Voltaire (based on his civil liberties/freedom of religion postings ive read), rather than a hardcore libertarian. They are similar, but with some subtleties in their differences.

[Truth Warrior]

Mussolini, Pot, and Hitler were Fascists.

Stalin and Mao were Communist/Marxist, some call it Stalinism.

Collectivist, perhaps, and many of our own Presidents were borderline as well, like FDR.

Liberal. No fucking way.

Fascist = socialists. What was the name of Hitler's party? ( Trick question )

What does the U.S.S.R. abreviation expand to? ( Trick question )

WWII was merely a squabble among feuding socialists. BTW, that includes FDR.

"By their body counts, ye shall know them." :p

[Kade]

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am not attacking you. I am disagreeing with you, I think there is a difference. All I was trying to say was that if you wanted me to vote for Obama, or support him in favor of the other two, it would be up to you to give me positive reasons, not me to prove my negative ones. If this was not the case, and you were simply responding to being attacked by others, then I apologize for making that assumption.

It seems to me that your reasons leaning towards Obama center around the fact that he seems to be highly intelligent, I have to agree that he does. My distrust of him doesn't come from some belief that he is stupid, but a belief that he will not use his intelligence to serve me, the American people, the constitution, etc. His healthcare plan alone is enough to convince me of this, the fact that he wishes to spend my money to provide healthcare to those who have not earned it is enough of a king-style leader to turn my stomach. I really don't care at all about the stupid antics the media has accused him of, by proxy nonetheless. I'm not sure what would be worse in the presidential position, a good intentioned idiot or a malignant genius, but I am sure that I am not willing to choose between the two.

It is also my belief that any presidential candidate who is not willing to take serious efforts to end our destruction foreign policy, our destructive monetary policy, and our attack on civil liberties that put thousands in jail for victim-less crimes, will add nothing to our current problems outside of contributing to our own destruction. It really seems like you have a chip on your shoulder due to being "the last liberal not banned", and maybe that is due to you because of how you have been treated here - that I cannot say. But I have always made every effort to debate you fairly, honestly, and with respect to your intelligence. It seems to me that you prefer to lump me into some non-thinking category that you have placed most other people in this forum, I really don't appreciate that.

Kraig, I completely agree with you, and I thank you for your civil response. I was responding mostly to being attacked, I should remember that you are the type of person I wish to speak to, and I apologize for unintentionally lumping you in the non-thinking group. :cool:

Obama's healthcare is being attacked by other democrats because it is not Universal. It does not strip the market the ability to compete with the "National Health Care" plan that will be available to people who otherwise could not afford it.

It is not perfect, and I disagree with it, but that is another debate.

He has made it clear that he will end the war in Iraq, and he has made it clear that he is not a fan of the drug war, and was attacked heavily in the media when he mentioned that he would work to reduce sentences for drug offenses.

I would prefer Ron Paul, but I am also a realist. I really, really do not want McCain.
I think this war is the most blundered policy in the history of this country, Vietnam included.

Obama is not a libertarian, and he is not a socialist. He is a centrist liberal. There are vast differences. He is a strong supporter of civil liberties, freedom of expression, religion, press...etc, he supports the non-partisanship of the Justice Department (my personal issue), funding science and education (a better option then funding a war, imo), and reducing taxes for the poorest.

I know it is not ideal by any standard, especially my own, but I really am serious about politics, and I swear to everyone hear that I understand libertarian arguments, (I think more than most here) and I've been down this road for so long, and have argued these points for so long... I don't mind a good philosophy debate, but that is for another thread.

I think most important to us is issues. I don't think a third party will win this election, so I am supporting the closest and best chance I have to something better than four more year of Bush policies....

Does that clear it up?

[Kade]

I certainly see Kade's points on Obama, and although I personally don't see actually voting for Obama as having any sort of marginal benefit over not doing so (for many reasons), I do think Obama offers some interesting alternatives. He seems like he really does want to positively change the world; unfortunately, his prescriptions for such are in some cases short-sighted/typical welfare statist policy biases - and he certainly is no federalist with regards to a host of issues. As for gun rights, hopefully DC vs Heller will make a president's gun preferences irrelelvant. As for the overall business climate, Presidents really don't affect long term economic growth and prosperity much at all, though im not a big fan of increasing taxes on sources of wealth that I intend to use/access/attain within my lifetime.

I used to harbor some irrational hate for Obama and his supporters, mainly back when i was all about the Ron Paul campaign. Now that thats subsided, and ive investigated more - the majority of the Obama-specific supporters (as opposed to just general Democrats who prefer Obama - im talkin about the throngs of new young supporters) are true to the stereotypes, sure, but i also know alot of good, intelligent, genuine peolpe supporting him precisely because of his views that I disagree with. So now I see him more as your typical Democrat, except with the twist that he might have a few very interesting extra net positives.

Also, if we are going to be debating the meaning of the term liberal forever, lets get it clear- it means alot of things in alot of different contexts. Kade seems to me like a classical liberal in the tradition of, say, Voltaire (based on his civil liberties/freedom of religion postings ive read), rather than a hardcore libertarian. They are similar, but with some subtleties in their differences.

Phew. I was feeling my blood pressure rise--- I appreciate the occasional fair posts.

You would be correct. I would like to take the term liberal back... and when I run for public office, I will lose because of my stubbornness.
Thank you my friend. :)

[ARealConservative]

If I allowed you to represent Ron Paul supporters alone, that title would be a welded crown upon your head.

Even the most misinformed Paul supporter could run current events circles around Obama supporters.

This isn't about you anyway, so I'm not sure why you choose to be defensive and get personal.

For the mainstream candidates, Obama's supporters seem to be more impressed with his silver tongue then any platform specific issues.

[acptulsa]

Fascist = socialists. What was the name of Hitler's party? ( Trick question )

What does the U.S.S.R. abreviation expand to? ( Trick question )

WWII was merely a squabble among feuding socialists. BTW, that includes FDR.

"By their body counts, ye shall know them." :p

:pX2

[Kade]

Even the most misinformed Paul supporter could run current events circles around Obama supporters.

This isn't about you anyway, so I'm not sure why you choose to be defensive and get personal.

For the mainstream candidates, Obama's supporters seem to be more impressed with his silver tongue then any platform specific issues.

I do think that most Ron Paul supporters are well informed, I think you have to be to get past the unfavorable press coverage in the first place.

I don't think all Obama supporters are that dumb.... many in the elite press like him for his civil and social issues, something they hide. (And yes, the elite press is an active political group)

[ItsTime]

Holy crap I agree with you! The Republican party is failing for many reasons one of the key reasons it is failing is the religious right.


The only advantage I see a democrat providing over a Republican is that it would neuter the religious right. And that's not enough for me to vote for Obama.

[Kade]

Holy crap I agree with you! The Republican party is failing for many reasons one of the key reasons it is failing is the religious right.

I too am a strong, strong antithesis to the religious right. My vote and activism is specifically geared towards neutering the dominionists.

[Truth Warrior]

:pX2

Look it up! :)

[acptulsa]

Look it up! :)

Don't look at me--I know you're right! And if it weren't for Churchill... <shakes head>

[Truth Warrior]

Don't look at me--I know you're right! And if it weren't for Churchill... <shakes head>

I must have misinterpreted your :pX2. Where's my smilie dictionary? :)

[AutoDas]

I call them obamaclones since all they do is reverberate "hope" and "change." Obama only has charisma and since he wasn't displaying any that night his people are angry.

edit: for me, Obama is a socialist because all it takes to be considered a socialist is to support any of their programs since they are doing it for social reasons anyway

[angelatc]

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Seems to be the official position. I'm not too keen on it myself...

In December, Clinton and Obama co-sponsred a bill that would have required troop withdrawal from Iraq. Neither of them showed up to garner support for, or even to vote for it, and it was soundly defeated.

He talks out of both sides of his mouth.

He has no respect for the Constitution, except to view it as a living document instead of the law.

One only has to look at his position on the second amendment to see that.

Obama firmly believes that the government needs to take care of us. I know darned well the Democrats believe that minorities are too stupid to take care of themselves, but I am especially offended that he apparently thnks I am also stupid.

[Truth Warrior]

Kade --

FYI ....

Socialism and Fascism
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

For just one source example.

Thanks! :)

[Kraig]

Kraig, I completely agree with you, and I thank you for your civil response. I was responding mostly to being attacked, I should remember that you are the type of person I wish to speak to, and I apologize for unintentionally lumping you in the non-thinking group. :cool:

Obama's healthcare is being attacked by other democrats because it is not Universal. It does not strip the market the ability to compete with the "National Health Care" plan that will be available to people who otherwise could not afford it.

It is not perfect, and I disagree with it, but that is another debate.

He has made it clear that he will end the war in Iraq, and he has made it clear that he is not a fan of the drug war, and was attacked heavily in the media when he mentioned that he would work to reduce sentences for drug offenses.

I would prefer Ron Paul, but I am also a realist. I really, really do not want McCain.
I think this war is the most blundered policy in the history of this country, Vietnam included.

Obama is not a libertarian, and he is not a socialist. He is a centrist liberal. There are vast differences. He is a strong supporter of civil liberties, freedom of expression, religion, press...etc, he supports the non-partisanship of the Justice Department (my personal issue), funding science and education (a better option then funding a war, imo), and reducing taxes for the poorest.

I know it is not ideal by any standard, especially my own, but I really am serious about politics, and I swear to everyone hear that I understand libertarian arguments, (I think more than most here) and I've been down this road for so long, and have argued these points for so long... I don't mind a good philosophy debate, but that is for another thread.

I think most important to us is issues. I don't think a third party will win this election, so I am supporting the closest and best chance I have to something better than four more year of Bush policies....

Does that clear it up?

First of all, thanks.

Not exactly relevant to our discussion, but oddly enough about 2-3 years ago I was an Obama supporter, of course I was an ignorant and non-passionate supporter. I grew up in a very hardcore republican family, which actually helped me clearly see the epic failure of the republican party - because I understood their core values (which were Ron Paul's values) and therefore also understood how the party leadership did not follow them. Because of that I saw Obama as our best chance for some much needed change, but I still had not looked into much of anything with any depth, and therefore had no idea of the level of change needed.

It was when I expressed this to a Ron Paul supporter that I first heard of Ron Paul and it was only then that I started to truly look into things rather than accepting politics as told by the media. That is what started me on an endless quest for knowledge, the desire to truly know the real causes and effects of every government policy we have had and may have in the future. I have studied of course current events that occur in our world today, and I also found study in history and philosophy to be quite relevant. My conclusion to that study is simply that our country as we know it is doomed unless we completely alter our current (current as in the past 100 years) way of doing things. If I were to agree that Obama is the best or "least damaging" of the three, and I do lean that direction, I simply find it irrelevant. To me I would see it as choosing if I wanted to be shot in the head or poisoned slowly, I think perhaps this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. However, there is definitely a good argument that can me made for slowing things down now, to give us a better chance at completely turning things around later, I am not ignoring that. I guess if it was up to me, if our country is to go through extreme poverty and tyranny before they realize that they wish to be free, then I would rather get it over with now so I can have some hope for a rebirth of freedom on the other side - and with enough of my life left so I can enjoy it. That doesn't mean I would willingly choose a destructive candidate to make it happen sooner rather than later, but it does mean I will more than likely vote for a 3rd party that I know has no chance, I will let the country decide it's fate as I stand on principle.

[Chibioz]

The obama sheeple finally see what we saw months ago. The fucking media are a joke. It wasn't obvious before this?

I hate obama and hillary. Too bad people couldn't perk their ears when someone who actually knew what the hell he was talking about was on stage. It was worth watching alone to see Ron school the other candidates in every category. Then again intellectualism is shunned in this country, thank god for HOPE and CHANGE oh my god!!!!

[Aratus]

in my own humble opinion, levrenti pavlovich beria may have had 20 conventional I.Q points
on comrade stalin, and perhaps 50 social I.Q points, however this is cold war trivia. both i do
believe were hardcore stalinists, though the dudes around molotov and malenkov sorta
thought beria wanted to revive the throne and not in a good way as the korean war stalemates.
admittedly this again is not socialism proper and U.S politics. national socialism was nazi
germany, the third reich. norman thomas and eugene debs were socialists. lloyd george of
the u.k was a laborite. huey long, famously in his barbecue speech in D.C advocates an upper bracket
"soak the rich" income tax scenario, yet he himself was not a socialist. of course its confusing.


both hillary clinton and barack obama last night handed us answers that would have been
and totally comprehensible by franklin delano roosevelt, were he alive today, and totally
clear-witted, clear-headed and extremely old. he'd have been torn between the two
democratic candidates! as badly as the kennedy clan of the current hour and those
divided endorsements! obama evidently wanted more out of the debate, insted hillary
hammered home her command of the issues and these words that draw all new deal
liberals back into the fold. i'm having an epithany. if hillary wins out, obama's people could
bolt in either ralph nader or ron paul's direction, mccain is too neo-con. if hillary looses,
her people could go for mccain unless they be anti-war...then its most likely nader or
another fringe third party candidate who gains!


Kade has this point, we all know obama's net organization is greatly better than hillary's
and yes, obama has avoided totally defining himself into the painted into corner sans an
exit strategy. hillary clinton is still constranied by the politics of the 1990s. at least obama
is in the 21st century. both have this edge in their voices, this worry about the economy
tanking. they both feel they can easily take on mccain as the economy gets more ruggedly
unsettling. they also seem to have a hint of the stuff "ghemminger" said to us in the
economics forum, namely a totally tanking economy can even turn a new deal democrat into
the next herbert hoover a.s.a.p if there are no true remedies or cures for our malaise or worse...

[aravoth]

Obama.......

You know whats funny? Remember when Buchannon got chastised for talking about building a border fence? How democrats hated the idea?

Obama voted for it. Fact he voted for it 3 times. Twice for a double layer fence, and once for a triple layer fence. Not saying it's bad, in fact most Republicans would agree with him on this point.

He also voted to have English as a national language, multiple times, after voting against it multiple times. :confused:

Obama Also voted no on a bill that would restrict say, a violent Illegal immigrant convicted of molesting a 2 year old with a gun in his hand from ever being allowed to gain legal status. :eek: What the hell is that about? But then, he voted to keep those immigrants outside of the country from coming in if they committed such a crime. :confused:

He voted against extending funding for Native American Healthcare. Which is odd, becuase of his bleeding heart status I would have thought that this would have been something he would have jumped on. Especially since out of every minority in our country, they have it the worst, by far.

He voted against the "Troop Redeployment Amendment", which would have ended the Iraq war and brought the troops home in 90 days. But then he votes for HR 4156, which gave the president all the Money he needed to contuinue fighting the war, so long as the president set "goals"( fucking "goals"? are you serious?) for a withdraw time.

He's supposedly all for Cival Liberties, yet he didn't even vote on wether or not to fund Real ID, and he voted for the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization in 2006 after voting against it in 2005.

He votes against CAFTA, and then he votes for a Fast Track Free-trade agreement with Oman.

He apparently drank the kool-aid and voted for the Prescription drug benefit (Medicare), believing that it was only gonna coast a few billion dollars. By the time funding for that one program within Medicare ran up too nearly a trillion dollars, he was still voting to increase the benefit. "Throw money at it! That will fix it!" :rolleyes:


Whatever, he's a good speaker, and Oprah likes him. Scarlett Johanson is super hot and she was in a stupid online video for him. He says Change, believes in hope, talks in circles, and has mesmerized an entire generation of distracted, useful idiots.


I don't give a shit what he talks about. I used to sell real estate, and I've bought a used car. I heard the exact same shit on the car lot, and at an open house. This guy is no different.

[Meatwasp]

[QUOTE=Kade;1406422]You are an angry little turd, aren't ya?

You just lost by being reduced to insults:):)

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[H Roark]

My comment to ABCNews.com

Was this a debate or a soap opera? Gibson and Stephanop are hardly journalists! What an embarrassment, almost no time was given to REAL ISSUES. Although I don't support neither Obama or Clinton, Barack came out looking more professional by trying to steer the dialogue in the right direction and away from the gossip. Gibson and Stephanop are both corporate ####, their masters at ABC want to keep people focused on trivial matters. Its no wonder why Gibson was sooo quick to award Hillary equal time, but would not extend the same courtesy to Ron Paul during the Republican debate. People if you want to hear substance, tune into what Ron Paul has to say!

[Conza88]

I'm a patriot and a liberal, not a bird hugger. I know why Obama gets a bad rap here, but there is a chance that you have but two choices only in this upcoming election, and I feel strongly that we don't need another Republican.

Ohhh.. you still believe in the false-left, false-right paradigm!
You're a fken idiot. :rolleyes:

[Conza88]

He is not on the memberlist. He is an event speaker.

http://www.cfr.org/bios/11603/barack_obama.html


http://obama.senate.gov/img/051101_cfr_non_proliferation.jpg

When you're invited to speak at a CFR convention, you are on the wrong fken team.
If Obama gets elected, we won't be going to hell - he'll be bringing it too America.

[Nirvikalpa]

This man's allegiance to Africa come first and foremost to his allegiance to America.

- The man poured some money into a Sudan-related stock.
- He wants to give PEPFAR $1billion a year (wonder where that money will be coming from?)

Ron Paul said it best:


The president is promising money we don’t have to solve a problem we didn’t cause. Americans have the freedom to do everything in their power to alleviate African suffering, whether by donating money or working directly in impoverished nations. But government-to-government foreign aid doesn’t work, and it never has. We should stop kidding ourselves and ignore the emotionalist pleas of rock stars. Suffering in Africa cannot be helped by delusional, feel-good government policies.

[Kade]

First of all, thanks.

Not exactly relevant to our discussion, but oddly enough about 2-3 years ago I was an Obama supporter, of course I was an ignorant and non-passionate supporter. I grew up in a very hardcore republican family, which actually helped me clearly see the epic failure of the republican party - because I understood their core values (which were Ron Paul's values) and therefore also understood how the party leadership did not follow them. Because of that I saw Obama as our best chance for some much needed change, but I still had not looked into much of anything with any depth, and therefore had no idea of the level of change needed.

It was when I expressed this to a Ron Paul supporter that I first heard of Ron Paul and it was only then that I started to truly look into things rather than accepting politics as told by the media. That is what started me on an endless quest for knowledge, the desire to truly know the real causes and effects of every government policy we have had and may have in the future. I have studied of course current events that occur in our world today, and I also found study in history and philosophy to be quite relevant. My conclusion to that study is simply that our country as we know it is doomed unless we completely alter our current (current as in the past 100 years) way of doing things. If I were to agree that Obama is the best or "least damaging" of the three, and I do lean that direction, I simply find it irrelevant. To me I would see it as choosing if I wanted to be shot in the head or poisoned slowly, I think perhaps this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. However, there is definitely a good argument that can me made for slowing things down now, to give us a better chance at completely turning things around later, I am not ignoring that. I guess if it was up to me, if our country is to go through extreme poverty and tyranny before they realize that they wish to be free, then I would rather get it over with now so I can have some hope for a rebirth of freedom on the other side - and with enough of my life left so I can enjoy it. That doesn't mean I would willingly choose a destructive candidate to make it happen sooner rather than later, but it does mean I will more than likely vote for a 3rd party that I know has no chance, I will let the country decide it's fate as I stand on principle.

First, my strategy is that of "slowing down" what I do believe is the most pressing issue... but that is another debate.

I was NOT an Obama supporter. I was a libertarian, openly and passionate. I was mostly an virulent critic of the war and the Bush administration, holding rallies and speeches on my campus at the University of Notre Dame. I held every major argument I see on these threads to heart, and I was intellectually prepared to destroy anyone in a arena.

I knew of Ron Paul for a long time, but I considered that he had dropped from libertarian principles and moved closer towards the GOP. When I got my new job after college, I just so happened to sit next to a Fundamentalist, pro-war, creationist, Republican guy a little younger than myself. He was a thinker though, and he remains one of my good friends, and I spent a tremendous amount of time arguing and debating him. I introduced him to Ron Paul sometime last year in an attempt to get him to think more like a libertarian.

He did. He is now one of the fiercest Ron Paul supporters I know... a precinct captain, a massive RP sticker and meeting organizing supporter like you have ever seen, and overall he is just a great guy.

He is on the boards, so you can verify this story with him: MicahNelson

I didn't much change.... I've always been more liberal leaning. My conversations here have opened my eyes to many things though, and it was NOT the idiots that have this effect. Mostly, it is people like Micah, who can often present something from a position that is easy to empathize with...

I'm vastly more persuasive in person, and I openly claim that few of you would be able to maintain such inept political positions in a real debate... which is why I'm oft offended by the one-liner punditry and false premises on the boards.

Directly above this post is a slew of posts calling me an idiot. I mostly ignore these people, they tire and wear me out, but mostly out of the irony of the frustration some of them have with their own situation, in trying to convince less informed citizens of their own positions.

I don't put myself above others... but I've lived all around this country, I grew up in a single parent family myself, and I've raised myself to my position today, and I am far from done... the greatness of this country, it can bring tears to my eyes.

I don't like this government. And I also don't think that one person has the answers. Not Ron Paul, not Bob Barr, and not any one of you.

What we do have is the ability to form coalitions and movements, and to argue our points and positions, and to convince others of our principles.

Some here have one mind, one thought, and rarely stray elsewhere to think for themselves.

You will know them instantly, they are not hard to spot.

[Bruno]

http://obama.senate.gov/img/051101_cfr_non_proliferation.jpg

When you're invited to speak at a CFR convention, you are on the wrong fken team.
If Obama gets elected, we won't be going to hell - he'll be bringing it too America.



Not being a member is a good way to strategically distance himself a little. Just like he is "friendly" with Michael Ayers, but not a member of the Weather Underground (defunk, I think, but I hope you get my point).

[Kade]

Ohhh.. you still believe in the false-left, false-right paradigm!
You're a fken idiot. :rolleyes:

And you believe a third party can win.

[Conza88]

And you believe a third party can win.

No I don't, lol. :) I used to hold the notion that Ron Paul should run after the convention, should we fail him. That was before I knew he would have to give up his Republican Congressional seat to do so. I'd prefer he stood around as a voice of reason for the next 4 years. God knows we'll need him.

Now, if there was a two party system, the Iraq war would be over and the troops would be home.. Didn't the democrats get elected to do exactly that?

Ohh wait... they did. Yet the funding continues.. (Thanks Obama!):rolleyes:

Its a one party system, with two faces. You still speak in tones as if the labels, democrat and republican mean something exceedingly different. They don't. They both represent the downfall of the United States. We're talking parties here, they've BOTH played a role.