A ''confessional ''thread::: Have you jumped off the obama bandwagon?

[bigred420]

Originally Posted by Deutschbag

Well you could say that like everyone else who automatically yells "the media is controlled" when something isn't to their liking.

but the daily kos is a liberal website and that is a fact. I would feel the same way if it was a republican slanted website. If I found it from something like the AP or Reuters then I would believe it .

The man is an actual reporter talking to the people that live there, How is there supposed to be another source when it is one man doing the reporting?

[stoned budda]

Originally Posted by bigred420

The man is an actual reporter talking to the people that live there, How is there supposed to be another source when it is one man doing the reporting?

Is there another sight, a more reliable site that this is reported on? If not I'm sorry but you cant really take it as fact.

[bigred420]

Originally Posted by stoned budda

Is there another sight, a more reliable site that this is reported on? If not I'm sorry but you cant really take it as fact.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

see the large spike when the war starts from the bombing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001442.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/wo...asualties.html

the largest number of civillian casualties happened in the first days, after world it became a smaller but more steady occurance.

[stoned budda]

Heres an interesting article i came across, high lighting the great orators "misspeaks", lol among other things.

The Case Against Obama - In His Own Words
Lorie Byrd
Friday, August 22, 2008

It would be hard to make a better case against a Barack Obama presidency than the one Obama has made in his own words. The most memorable thing about Obama’s speeches is not generally what he says, but rather how large and enthusiastic the audiences are. If voters pay attention only to the symbolism and get caught up in the excitement of the Obamessiah and his throngs of fainting disciples, he stands a good chance of winning in November. If voters pay attention instead to the things Obama is saying, the case against an Obama presidency will be clear.
Obama’s youthful appearance is often cited as one of his biggest assets, but when he opens his mouth he doesn’t always come off as presidential or even particularly intelligent. The political figure who perhaps has received the most ridicule in the past twenty years is Dan Quayle (due largely to a misspelled word on a flashcard he read during an appearance at a school). I wonder how much more grief would have been heaped on Vice President Quayle if he had made any of the following gaffes committed by Barack Obama (from Michelle Malkin):

·
Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.
·
Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
·
Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.” Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965.

Some of Obama’s gaffes go beyond simple slips of the tongue and confusion over numbers though and display a lack of knowledge on important issues as was the case when he commented on the war in Afghanistan and the lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” As Malkin pointed out, the real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan is because Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish, while Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages. Worse than the lack of knowledge of the languages spoken in other nations is that he lacks an understanding of the threat posed by some of them. Or maybe he doesn’t. It is really a bit confusing. In Portland, Oregon, Obama said of Iran, “They don't pose a seriousthreat to us.” The following day in Billings, Montana he said: “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” Maybe it depends what the definitions of “grave” and “serious” are. As I said, it is all bit confusing. Maybe that is why so many focus on the crowds at Obama’s events, rather than to what Obama is actually saying to them.
If voters are paying attention to what Barack Obama says they will see not only a lack of knowledge of important issues, but on some of the issues where he is informed, an attempt to hide his true position and past votes.
In the Saddleback Church forum last week, in response to Rev. Rick Warren’s question, “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” Obama responded: “Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” As blogger Cassy Fiano points out, the idea that someone running for President would dodge such an important question in that way is “beyond ridiculous” and obviously an attempt to be as ambiguous as possible so that he does not offend those who disagree with the very radical positions he has taken on the issue of abortion during his political career. Obama’s past comments and votes on abortion legislation definitely say more about him than anything he is saying on the subject now.
Another example of actions speaking louder than words can be found when we listen to Obama’s money talk. According to Obama’s tax returns from 2000-2006, the Obamas have given far less to charity than John McCain has. In all but the two most recent years reported, the Obamas gave around 1% or less of their income to charity. Their contributions increased in 2005 and 2006 to 4.7% and 6.1% respectively, but still are far short of those of McCain who gave 28.6% in 2006 and 27.3% in 2007. But if you listen to Obama’s words you will hear that he is very concerned about the least among us.
According to the following statement from an Obama speech earlier this summer, it appears pretty much everyone who isn’t Obama is a lesser being: “...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.” If Obama is able to slow the rise of the oceans then ending poverty and securing peace should be a cakewalk. I suppose he will only be able to accomplish such feats if elected President though.
This week John McCain pulled ahead of Obama in many polls and projections. Maybe voters have finally started listening to what Obama has been saying now that the thrill of his oratory is wearing thin.

[InnerPeace]

obama aint no thang. just another brother trying to be the first black president. as far as would he be a good one? shit, dont make a difference. I sound ignorant but there is alot of truth in my word.

[Mist425]

Originally Posted by stoned budda

Heres an interesting article i came across, high lighting the great orators "misspeaks", lol among other things.

The Case Against Obama - In His Own Words
Lorie Byrd
Friday, August 22, 2008

It would be hard to make a better case against a Barack Obama presidency than the one Obama has made in his own words. The most memorable thing about Obama’s speeches is not generally what he says, but rather how large and enthusiastic the audiences are. If voters pay attention only to the symbolism and get caught up in the excitement of the Obamessiah and his throngs of fainting disciples, he stands a good chance of winning in November. If voters pay attention instead to the things Obama is saying, the case against an Obama presidency will be clear.
Obama’s youthful appearance is often cited as one of his biggest assets, but when he opens his mouth he doesn’t always come off as presidential or even particularly intelligent. The political figure who perhaps has received the most ridicule in the past twenty years is Dan Quayle (due largely to a misspelled word on a flashcard he read during an appearance at a school). I wonder how much more grief would have been heaped on Vice President Quayle if he had made any of the following gaffes committed by Barack Obama (from Michelle Malkin):

·
Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.
·
Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
·
Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.” Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965.

Some of Obama’s gaffes go beyond simple slips of the tongue and confusion over numbers though and display a lack of knowledge on important issues as was the case when he commented on the war in Afghanistan and the lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” As Malkin pointed out, the real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan is because Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish, while Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages. Worse than the lack of knowledge of the languages spoken in other nations is that he lacks an understanding of the threat posed by some of them. Or maybe he doesn’t. It is really a bit confusing. In Portland, Oregon, Obama said of Iran, “They don't pose a seriousthreat to us.” The following day in Billings, Montana he said: “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” Maybe it depends what the definitions of “grave” and “serious” are. As I said, it is all bit confusing. Maybe that is why so many focus on the crowds at Obama’s events, rather than to what Obama is actually saying to them.
If voters are paying attention to what Barack Obama says they will see not only a lack of knowledge of important issues, but on some of the issues where he is informed, an attempt to hide his true position and past votes.
In the Saddleback Church forum last week, in response to Rev. Rick Warren’s question, “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” Obama responded: “Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” As blogger Cassy Fiano points out, the idea that someone running for President would dodge such an important question in that way is “beyond ridiculous” and obviously an attempt to be as ambiguous as possible so that he does not offend those who disagree with the very radical positions he has taken on the issue of abortion during his political career. Obama’s past comments and votes on abortion legislation definitely say more about him than anything he is saying on the subject now.
Another example of actions speaking louder than words can be found when we listen to Obama’s money talk. According to Obama’s tax returns from 2000-2006, the Obamas have given far less to charity than John McCain has. In all but the two most recent years reported, the Obamas gave around 1% or less of their income to charity. Their contributions increased in 2005 and 2006 to 4.7% and 6.1% respectively, but still are far short of those of McCain who gave 28.6% in 2006 and 27.3% in 2007. But if you listen to Obama’s words you will hear that he is very concerned about the least among us.
According to the following statement from an Obama speech earlier this summer, it appears pretty much everyone who isn’t Obama is a lesser being: “...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.” If Obama is able to slow the rise of the oceans then ending poverty and securing peace should be a cakewalk. I suppose he will only be able to accomplish such feats if elected President though.
This week John McCain pulled ahead of Obama in many polls and projections. Maybe voters have finally started listening to what Obama has been saying now that the thrill of his oratory is wearing thin.

All in all that was a pretty weak article. The two things I think are of most importance are his flip-flop on the Iran issue and his ambiguity on abortion.

One thing you've gotta realize is that although it's awful, a point of great importance for politicians is their image; they'll say different shit at different times depending on who they're speaking to. The best way to really get a view of a politician is to see how he votes.

[stoned budda]

Originally Posted by Mist425

All in all that was a pretty weak article. The two things I think are of most importance are his flip-flop on the Iran issue and his ambiguity on abortion.

One thing you've gotta realize is that although it's awful, a point of great importance for politicians is their image; they'll say different shit at different times depending on who they're speaking to. The best way to really get a view of a politician is to see how he votes.

Yes, Obama has the most liberal voting record in senate.

[Mist425]

Originally Posted by stoned budda

Yes, Obama has the most liberal voting record in senate.

One question for you budda: don't you think that what these differences in political support (i.e a democrat voting for Obama or a republican voting for McCain) boil down to is just a matter of ideological opinion? I mean, people know their own life opinions and they're going to vote based on those, so aren't these threads just a little pointless?

[stoned budda]

Originally Posted by Mist425

One question for you budda: don't you think that what these differences in political support (i.e a democrat voting for Obama or a republican voting for McCain) boil down to is just a matter of ideological opinion? I mean, people know their own life opinions and they're going to vote based on those, so aren't these threads just a little pointless?

If going by that theory wouldn't most debate be pointless? Certainly this whole forum would be pointless.

[Deutschbag]

Originally Posted by stoned budda

If going by that theory wouldn't most debate be pointless? Certainly this whole forum would be pointless.

Am I pointless?

[stoned budda]

Originally Posted by Deutschbag

Am I pointless?

Huh ?

[Deutschbag]

Originally Posted by stoned budda

Huh ?

sorry baked.....

[stoned budda]

Originally Posted by Deutschbag

sorry baked.....

That cool, it was just freakin me out for a minute.

[wackdeafboy]

Originally Posted by chicken

theres so much,,,,wrong with this dude,,,,,,most people will follow thier race into the ground,,,,,

... you A.K. really if you look athis political platform....you wouldnt support him,,,,,

but he's african american,,,,,,you seem like a true american,, but the retoric this guy spews dont raise a red flag to you/?

hey in the olympics we all support america,,,, nothing wrong with supporting this dude based on race,,,,,,

hell we support candidates for less reasons,,,,,,but A.K.,,,,i would put money that in the back of your mind,,,,,your a little upset wih this fellow,,,,



and i still say that at the convention hillary has a card up her sleeve,,,,,

and the way politics are played these days,,,,, whose to say it may not have been planned,,,,,when you put yourself in the mind of political strategicaness,,,,

who knows what may take place to secure the results you desire,,,,

racist

[chicken]

Originally Posted by wackdeafboy

racist

i think the word you were looking for is......politically correct..

but anyone who speaks out against this guy,,,,

well racist is the first thing strew forth by a lot of lips..

real weak,,,,