The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future...

The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FatDomDaddy -> The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/21/2008 7:18:32 PM)
The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future of the country... Senator Obama or Senator Clinton? To answer either is a cop out. Personally, as far as history goes... I think Obama gaining the Democrat nomination for President of the United States would be the singular most important event in the history of Civil Rights in the U.S. and in the top five of most important events period.

CraZYWiLLiE -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the Future... (4/21/2008 7:19:34 PM)
I am sending Klinton 100 bucks tomorrow, and am voting for McCain!

cyberdude611 -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/21/2008 8:36:17 PM)
I dont think it matters since McCain is going to win. Over and over again the Democrats have a habit to nominate the most leftist and most elitist in their ranks. Obama has some HUGE problems the GOP is going to hammer him on. The Rev Wright thing is only the beginning. He still has not come clean on many things like the William Ayers and the Weather Underground thing. And the Minuteman march with Farrakahn. Why wont he simply come out and distance himself from these people? His refusal to do so has to make one wonder if maybe these radicals have a place in his heart. The Dems will not win back the White House until they nominate someone who is in the mainstream. The majority of the country does not want a left-wing socialist radical that has these strange relationships with racists and terrorists that he refuses to denounce and distance himself from.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/21/2008 9:04:32 PM)
Two heads of the same dragon. I will not follow the sheep to slaughter. Bob Barr for President http://www.bobbarr2008.com/?gclid=CJO22_jk7ZICFSU0kgodiQobww

FatDomDaddy -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/22/2008 3:45:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 I dont think it matters since McCain is going to win. That's not the question nor the point Either democrat nominee will be historic but one will be better for the future of American society than the other and significantly so and I think that man is Obama.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/22/2008 4:13:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 I dont think it matters since McCain is going to win. Over and over again the Democrats have a habit to nominate the most leftist and most elitist in their ranks. As opposed to the Republicans who nominate, retards, senile geriatrics and criminals?

subrob1967 -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/22/2008 8:00:56 AM)
This is how I feel about Obama How anyone could believe he can actually get elected, let alone change the way Congress does business is beyond me. Pelosi & Reid were supposed to bring change, what happened?

cyberdude611 -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/22/2008 12:37:42 PM)
The way Obama supporters talk is as if he's the 2nd coming of Christ. I was reading a blog of an Obama supporter the other day and they were totally delusional. They were talking about how when he's elected there will "finally be peace in the world." And that he will solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and save the poor and hungry and the planet will be saved from global warming. I mean it would funny if the author who wrote it wasnt so serious....they were!

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/22/2008 1:00:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 I dont think it matters since McCain is going to win. Over and over again the Democrats have a habit to nominate the most leftist and most elitist in their ranks. Obama has some HUGE problems the GOP is going to hammer him on. The Rev Wright thing is only the beginning. He still has not come clean on many things like the William Ayers and the Weather Underground thing. And the Minuteman march with Farrakahn. Why wont he simply come out and distance himself from these people? His refusal to do so has to make one wonder if maybe these radicals have a place in his heart. The Dems will not win back the White House until they nominate someone who is in the mainstream. The majority of the country does not want a left-wing socialist radical that has these strange relationships with racists and terrorists that he refuses to denounce and distance himself from. What Weather Underground thing? Left-wing socialist radical... hahaha you John Birchers crack me up.

cyberdude611 -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/22/2008 1:09:51 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29

domiguy -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/22/2008 1:18:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 I dont think it matters since McCain is going to win. Over and over again the Democrats have a habit to nominate the most leftist and most elitist in their ranks. This is why McCain will win....People listen to some shitty news service and now the term "elitist" is being thrown around to describe a black candidate. Why didn't you refer to him as an elitist TWO WEEKS AGO? That's right the media of your choice, probably FOX, had not informed you of your opinion yet. If not thinking "like this" makes you one of the elitists...When is high tea being served?

domiguy -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/22/2008 1:34:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 I dont think it matters since McCain is going to win. Obama has some HUGE problems the GOP is going to hammer him on. The Rev Wright thing is only the beginning. He still has not come clean on many things like the William Ayers and the Weather Underground thing. And the Minuteman march with Farrakahn. Why wont he simply come out and distance himself from these people? His refusal to do so has to make one wonder if maybe these radicals have a place in his heart. The Dems will not win back the White House until they nominate someone who is in the mainstream. The majority of the country does not want a left-wing socialist radical that has these strange relationships with racists and terrorists that he refuses to denounce and distance himself from. Wow. The good people at FOX were never concerned that a "distinguished" professor was teaching at the University of Illinois Chicago campus. Why were they not concerned that a "terrorists" was teaching our children? Because it didn't matter then and it sure as shit doesn't matter now. They9 Obama and Ayers) met while working together for the "WOODS fund of Chicago." http://www.woodsfund.org/ It sounds like a horribly radical organization....Trying to help those that are less advantaged....Why didn't FOX find this horrific?....That's right because it wasn't news worthy then and it isn't today...40 years ago Ayers was a member of a group that protested the Viet Nam war...The only people killed by his group were his group...some bombs exploded killing three of their members. Since then Ayers has served his country well...Better than probably anyone on this site. Why are you seemingly unable to think for yourself? You do have knack for putting out your free speech...Or in this case closer to worthless.

Mercnbeth -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/22/2008 2:13:12 PM)
quote: The only people killed by his group were his group...some bombs exploded killing three of their members. Since then Ayers has served his country well...Better than probably anyone on this site. Because he participated in a group who's bombs ended up killing themselves he served his country well? He's "better" served his country than "probably anyone on this site"; military Veterans included? You think Senator Obama feels similarly? Maybe he just considered Ayers another "eccentric uncle" who happened to belong to a group who blew themselves up while making bombs? Wonder if Ayers and the others, now dead, who served and serve this country "well" were making the opposite of neutron bombs which would target to only kill or destroy right wing collateral without injuring humans?

domiguy -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/22/2008 2:38:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: The only people killed by his group were his group...some bombs exploded killing three of their members. Since then Ayers has served his country well...Better than probably anyone on this site. Because he participated in a group who's bombs ended up killing themselves he served his country well? He's "better" served his country than "probably anyone on this site"; military Veterans included? You think Senator Obama feels similarly? Maybe he just considered Ayers another "eccentric uncle" who happened to belong to a group who blew themselves up while making bombs? Wonder if Ayers and the others, now dead, who served and serve this country "well" were making the opposite of neutron bombs which would target to only kill or destroy right wing collateral without injuring humans? Dude it was forty fucking years ago....Since then Ayers is viewed as a distinguished college professor. Why wasn't FOX news concerned that this terrorist was teaching our kids? Because he is not a terrorist and he is no longer a threat. If you did drugs in the sixties are you still a crazed drug abuser today? The Viet Nam war is similar to the shit that we find ourselves in Iraq...It was a manufactured war with littel chance of success. In fact none for Viet Nam. But for some reason we are now portraying the war as something other than what it actually was. Since when have we decided that it is appropriate to rewrite history and now make the Viet Nam war something that it never was? Something noble?..A good cause? How much time did Ayers serve for his terrorist activities? Merc...I see threads that are continually busting the chops of the illegals and now we have Ayers being labeled as a terrorist...Ayers and his group conducted their acts in opposition to an unjust war...Was it terrorism?...Maybe...maybe not. Since then Ayers has served his country well. He has done nothing but help those who are less fortunate and he became a distinguished and respected teacher. I would love to put up the last 30 years of Ayers life to anyone who posts out on CM. In fact...(Changing the subject) I imagine that there are many illegals that have taken the opportunities that were afforded in this country and done much more with those opportunities than many folks who post out here. Obama is not some miracle cure. But it is evident to me when someone has allowed themselves to be poisoned by their news source of choice. Obama is fresh and he is different...I find him to be appealing. We now label the Million man March as being something horribly negative because of it's association with Farrakhan....The march had much les to do with Farrakhan as it did to provide a chance for unity and to have a unified voice be heard. http://www3.cnn.com/US/9510/megamarch/10-16/update/index.html "And while Farrakhan may have been the inspiration for Monday's Million Man March, he wasn't necessarily the reason huge numbers of people showed up. In interviews with CNN, several African-American participants said they hoped the rally would generate self-reliance and black unity. "We're not here to overthrow anyone," said John West, an educator from Chicago. (111K AIFF sound or 111K WAV sound)." Here is a quote from a 1995 profile of Obama in the Chicago Reader. This is what he had to say about his participation in Minister Farrakhan’s Million Man March: “But cursing out white folks is not going to get the job done. Anti-Semitic and anti-Asian statements are not going to lift us up. We’ve got some hard nuts-and-bolts organizing and planning to do. We’ve got communities to build.” People that listen to FOX like cyberdude and so many other 'weak minded" people of this country are not the least bit interested in finding "the truth" but simply want every suspicion and every belief confirmed. This type of indvidual will more than happily allow others to inform them of what their truths should be... It's sad but it is where we stand today. So many do not have the time to annoy themselves with the facts. It sucks. Paint the candidates anyway that you choose. Rewrite history to fit your agenda. And what really pisses me off is that so many motherfuckers swallow this shit without questioning the authenticity in any way, shape or form...If it fits their belief system they would rather think of it as being a truth than actually taking the time to find out for themselves.

Mercnbeth -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/23/2008 7:31:33 AM)
DG, It is a religious thing for me. As a devout pragmatist; Senator Obama is not qualified and doesn't have the background and experience which qualifies him for the position. It has nothing to do with his race or his gender. Same applies for Mr Ayers, pragmatically it was a bomber. I never labeled him a terrorist. He is a bomber. Leaving aside the label "terrorist"; he was a bomber. The fact that his bombs killed his own people isn't material. The Vietnam war was protested by many people on a number of fronts; most of them legal and didn't involve bombs. If there were 'heroes' in that effort it would be those that effected the result without bombing. Is 40 years an excuse for past crimes? Pragmatically, a man who wants to be President need to apply similar pragmatism about his/her associates. Illegal aliens and their criminal employers (because you don't have one without the other) speak to pragmatic application of law. Again it has nothing to do with race or nationality. Unlike other laws that need and should be changed, in this instance amnesty would benefit the criminals. Not so much the individual illegal aliens, but the corporations and individuals who hire them. Brining in and 'legalizing' 5 million low skilled workers insures that for the next 20 years those jobs will remain low paying. It doesn't benefit the workers, it benefits their employers at the expense of low and middle income US citizens. Add to the equation the existing pressure on social services and it becomes a no brainer that if the criminal employers were prosecuted the incentive would be gone for illegal immigration to the US. As a result to get the job done, US citizens would be hired at a pay rate justifying the job, not a pay rate that it allows a meager existence while living under the radar. Putting those two thoughts together, your point is taken. Mr Ayers and the illegal workers aren't ALL bad - granted. So what? Fundamentally they can't have served this county "better" than people who've never been convicted of a crime, never used bombs to make their point, and have legal status to work. The problem with your representing them as "better" speaks to excusing criminality. I prefer to recognize and highlight those achieving their goals without using those methods. I'd rather consider the millions waiting in line for legal entry into the US as "better". And, as much as I disagree and find her actions abhorrent, I'd recognize the methods used by Jane Fonda "better" than any person who used bombs to support their argument. Back to what I think is your major point, Senator Obama. His race isn't the reason anyone should vote for him or against him. A President should be considered the ultimate EEO hire. A recent thread identified his candidacy as the greatest civil rights event in US history. To think that mindset exists and some people actually believe it, is incredible. Maybe its a matter of a age/era. Growing up in the 60's - 70's I appreciated the efforts of Dr. King. He enlightened me and many others; who lived a modern day version of separate but equal. President Johnson passed broad civil rights laws tearing down many of the barriers. AA/EEO were important and served this country well; those Senators/Congressmen deserve consideration. Shouldn't the emancipation proclamation and President Lincoln get into the mix? It appears that the electorate's ability to think and process information has vanished. Ask people why they are voting for Senator Obama and the most common answer is change. What change? What specific policy or program that he supports represents change? What new method does he represent? His campaign is losing steam because many people have begun to ask these same questions. He's a great talker; however his problem is in substance. All things being equal - would he be a viable candidate as a white candidate? Is the idea that his candidacy is "the most important civil rights event in US history" a legitimate reason to support him? By my criteria for election he only has one thing on the positive side of the equation. He isn't in the political mainstream of Washington DC. However, even that is tempered by remembering the last President with a similar lack of DC political experience. It did draw me to consider him - it was the details that eliminated him; his past decisions, his judgment, his words in books, the people he considers mentors, friends, and confidants. The man reads as a person not really sure of who he is, very insecure, and lacking confidence without any experience or success to draw upon. I think Senator Clinton's campaign reincarnation as a viable candidate speaks to the fact that many are starting to realize the same thing.

MissSCD -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/23/2008 7:39:22 AM)
*I have to give it to Hillary after last night's speech. She gave me hope for the first time in a long time. I am proud of her.* *As for Obama, his problems started when the liberals backed him especially Jane Fonda and the Kennedys.* *I am not voting for Obama. It is not because he is African American. It is because of the people backing him.* *Now, If Hillary doesn't win, I will vote for McCain because he made the least amount of money last year than Clinton and Obama.* *They all need to know it is about the oil and economy. The one that figures that out, I will vote for.* *Regards, MissSCD*

subfever -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/23/2008 7:50:40 AM)
quote: Ask people why they are voting for Senator Obama and the most common answer is change. What change? What specific policy or program that he supports represents change? What new method does he represent? He claims that he will change the lobby system.

Mercnbeth -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/23/2008 8:08:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever quote: Ask people why they are voting for Senator Obama and the most common answer is change. What change? What specific policy or program that he supports represents change? What new method does he represent? He claims that he will change the lobby system. Really? His words: quote: "The people in this stadium need to know who we're going to fight for," Obama said at Soldier Field. "The reason that I'm running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate." His actions: quote: But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant. In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show. Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said. In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country. Source for both quotes: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

MissSCD -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/23/2008 8:08:57 AM)
They all say that. SCD quote: ORIGINAL: subfever quote: Ask people why they are voting for Senator Obama and the most common answer is change. What change? What specific policy or program that he supports represents change? What new method does he represent? He claims that he will change the lobby system.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The Democrat Nominee, who's more important for the future... (4/23/2008 6:24:46 PM)
~FR~ Neither is more important. Same shit wrapped in different packages. Better question is, who would do the least amount of damage to this country?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375