Finally an in depth, non biased overview of Barack Obama

[RoboRiise]

You can talk about the leftist slant of magazines like Rolling Stone all you like. With your assumption that we daft little Brits are somehow incapable of seeing past the editorial flavour of such publications, you are again bordering on arrogance.

 

The prose is opinion. The references are fact, regardless of where they are published.

 

The single act of bringing Palin onto the ticket should be enough for any right-thinking person to realise that this man is not Presidential material. As for the earlier point about the election being about Obama vs McCain not Obama vs Palin, statistically speaking it's a one in three chance that if McCain gets elected, he dies during his first term. Taking that into account, I'd say the Palin issue is extremely important.

 

I'm afraid I don't have the statistics to hand for 47 year old possibly Muslim, potentially terrorist senators, without which I'm unable to fully quantify the Biden factor. Perhaps someone could help me out.

Edited October 10, 2008 by RoboRiise

[RedinSweden]

If it helps, I think they are all cunts. But, Palin is the only one I would rattle. Maybe Obama if i'd had enough to drink.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Igor, much of what you posted is just not true. You can site liberal sources like Rolling Stone (FFS) or the NY Times all you want, but if you're not living in America you're clearly not seeing how left wing they are and how they cater to the Obama campaign.

 

I know it's petty, but, my friends, that spelling is starting to piss me off.

Site

-noun

1. the position or location of a town, building, etc., esp. as to its environment: the site of our summer cabin.

2. the area or exact plot of ground on which anything is, has been, or is to be located: the site of ancient Troy.

3. Computers. Web site.

–verb (used with object)

4. to place in or provide with a site; locate.

5. to put in position for operation, as artillery: to site a cannon.

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME

 

 

Cite

–verb (used with object), cit·ed, cit·ing.

1. to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), esp. as an authority: He cited the Constitution in his defense.

2. to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example: He cited many instances of abuse of power.

3. to summon officially or authoritatively to appear in court.

4. to call to mind; recall: citing my gratitude to him.

5. Military. to mention (a soldier, unit, etc.) in orders, as for gallantry.

6. to commend, as for outstanding service, hard work, or devotion to duty.

7. to summon or call; rouse to action.

[Origin: 1400–50; late ME

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Conservapedia does make a convincing argument why Obama is unfit for high office on two grounds - He is a Muslim and he is an active member of a Christian church. :whatever:

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Igor, much of what you posted is just not true. You can site liberal sources like Rolling Stone (FFS) or the NY Times all you want, but if you're not living in America you're clearly not seeing how left wing they are and how they cater to the Obama campaign.

 

Ayers did help Obama start his career. They sat together and gave speeches together as members on the board of the Woods foundation.

 

J. Wright is a racist and Obama sat in his church for 20+ years and 'claims' he never heard his radical sermons.

 

He is friends w/ Rezko and with him built low income housing to 'help' the lower class of Illinois. The only problem, that housing was so poorly built it's boarded up or about to be condemned. Btw, Rezko is going to jail, likely for the rest of his life and will be sentenced around election day (no one will care at that point)

 

Your #'s about Fannie nad Freddie donations are just wrong.

 

These associations highlight is youth, his lack of judgement, and his ability to do and say anything in the name of political expediency to get in the white house instead of having real experience.

 

Look, i'm a conservative. I know it's probably more popular for me to jump on the Obama bandwagon. I wanted to in the begging, but as I found out more more, I can't vote for a guy who's going to take 7-8% of our GDP and give it to the rest of the world as a part of a Wolrd Poverty act. The gov't already takes a nice chunk of my money in taxes. I'll be damned if i'm going to allow them to take more so they can decide how to spend it.

 

McCain's a republican, but he's liberal as hell. I'd love a do-over, but we're stuck w/ one of these two. At least McCain has a 'little' experience to fall back on. Our bail out package is already hurting Americans and will soon ripple to your economy. Limited gov't, not expanded, is the way we'll get out of this by allowing people to make their own decisions instead of the gov't thinking they know best. I'm not talking about complete deregulation of everything.

 

Sorry for the long posts, it's something i'm passionate about, if you'd like to talk about something specific I'd be glad to. I know I'm not going to make any friends posting anti-Obama anything. I'm just at a loss for all the britons who'll slag (and not even read certain websites, magazines, newspapers, watch skysports, etc), sometimes with very...very good reason, telling me that there isn't bias here.

 

SM4G, fair enough if you're not sucked in by Obamania and you think the McCain-Palin ticket is the better (or least awful) option. But can you at least concede the point implied by the first post of this thread, i.e. that Conservapedia is a sack of shit that doesn't even pretend to do anything other than spread lies and innuendoes to reinforce right-wing views.

[igor biscan]

Igor, much of what you posted is just not true. You can site liberal sources like Rolling Stone (FFS) or the NY Times all you want, but if you're not living in America you're clearly not seeing how left wing they are and how they cater to the Obama campaign.

 

Ayers did help Obama start his career. They sat together and gave speeches together as members on the board of the Woods foundation.

 

J. Wright is a racist and Obama sat in his church for 20+ years and 'claims' he never heard his radical sermons.

 

He is friends w/ Rezko and with him built low income housing to 'help' the lower class of Illinois. The only problem, that housing was so poorly built it's boarded up or about to be condemned. Btw, Rezko is going to jail, likely for the rest of his life and will be sentenced around election day (no one will care at that point)

 

Your #'s about Fannie nad Freddie donations are just wrong.

 

These associations highlight is youth, his lack of judgement, and his ability to do and say anything in the name of political expediency to get in the white house instead of having real experience.

 

Look, i'm a conservative. I know it's probably more popular for me to jump on the Obama bandwagon. I wanted to in the begging, but as I found out more more, I can't vote for a guy who's going to take 7-8% of our GDP and give it to the rest of the world as a part of a Wolrd Poverty act. The gov't already takes a nice chunk of my money in taxes. I'll be damned if i'm going to allow them to take more so they can decide how to spend it.

 

McCain's a republican, but he's liberal as hell. I'd love a do-over, but we're stuck w/ one of these two. At least McCain has a 'little' experience to fall back on. Our bail out package is already hurting Americans and will soon ripple to your economy. Limited gov't, not expanded, is the way we'll get out of this by allowing people to make their own decisions instead of the gov't thinking they know best. I'm not talking about complete deregulation of everything.

 

Sorry for the long posts, it's something i'm passionate about, if you'd like to talk about something specific I'd be glad to. I know I'm not going to make any friends posting anti-Obama anything. I'm just at a loss for all the britons who'll slag (and not even read certain websites, magazines, newspapers, watch skysports, etc), sometimes with very...very good reason, telling me that there isn't bias here.

 

mccain / obama contributions from freddie mac and fannie mae:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Fact Check: Did Obama ‘profit’ from Fannie and Freddie? « - Blogs from CNN.com

 

btw, economy wise, i agree with you. these morons running around acting as if regulation is going cause this entire financial mess are absolutely retarded. i'd be interested to know how much money some of these guys are getting from accounting and law firms that will clean up once some of these regulations come into play.

 

as far as ayers go - look, even if he did help him launch his career, and they did some speeches together, what exactly is the issue here? should every single person ever associated with ayers be disqualified from public office? if i'm not mistaken, there were a lot of republicans and former reagen administration officials involved in these same boards. like it or not, he's a respected member of ths chicago political establishment, any politician from the area is likely to have some sort of connections with him.

 

as far as wright goes, obviously obama knew he held some radical views. but at the same time, the man has done a lot of good in this world - in some of the poorest areas of the country. we have to stop viewing things in black and white - the world is grey. i don't care if obama was practicing witchcraft as long as he could instill enough confidence in investors to get the dow near 15,000 again.

 

like i said, politics is a dirty business, for every rezko that obama is associated with, i could bring up a charles keating (who btw, SHOULD be in jail for the rest of his life) on the part of mccain? what's the point? how does that help solve america's problems? it's all just noise clouding the real issues.

 

is there anything factually incorrect in the rolling stone piece you'd like to bring up, or newsweek or new york times articles i mentioned? it's easy to dismiss them as left wing propaganda, but that's a knee jerk reaction. mccain is an hot tempered buffoon who shouldn't be let anywhere near the white house.

 

i don't know how you can compare a lack of judgement in choosing friends 20 years ago to the lack of judgement involved in invading iraq. i don't know how any fiscal conservative can support someone with such a moronic mortgage buy back scheme, who has supported such ballooning deficits, and who thinks cutting earmarks are the biggest obstacle to fixing government spending. look at the national debt since bush took over - these republican programs just simply don't work!

 

is there a media bias? of course. part of it is admiration - obama wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but he was able to live the american dream, succeed beyond anyones wildest expectations. who would have given him any chance against hillary clinton 2 years ago? the other part is the media getting tired of the lying and manipulative mccain campaign, and realizing his whole "straight talker" shtick was a facade. mccain has no one to blame but himself for surrounding himself with the same people he condemned in 2000.

 

i'd like some figures on this world poverty act assertion btw. thanks.

[dennis tooth]

New york times is quite right wing you idiot. Lastly, go ahead waste your vote, voting for a no mark old schizo who suffers flashbacks alongside a hockey slut against the guy who just come from 'nowhere' to beat Hilary, the supposed savior and great hope of Democrats for the last 10 years only demonstates his gravitas as a leader. I shouldn't worry though as some nut like you who can't accept the taste of the reality flavoured world will no doubt want to request Obama removes his fingers from 'your pocket' before firing several rounds into his torso.

[mattyq]

Two good articles on Bush et al rom Vanity Fair

 

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com

 

America the Banana Republic: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com

 

ps Igor's ruling this thread imo

[SoMuch4Gravity]

Wow. I really didn't have you down as a conservative, SM4G.

Did you vote for Bush and how do you think he's worked out?

 

As long as you're calling me conservative and not a republican, that's actually nice to hear :)

 

I'm very conservative financially, which is why i'm livid at the mortgage crisis and the subsequent bailout. Socially I'm quite liberal in areas (especially on gay rights/marriage).

 

I did vote for Bush based on his experience with foreign affairs. This statement has to be tempered by saying, 'in contrast' to Kerry and Gore, which I didn't have faith in. I know it's easy to focus on 'Dubya' b/c he's the President, but unless you're looking at what congress is doing too, we don't have the whole picture. our president can't just do things w/o the blessing of congress (which is now overwhelmingly democratic). enough democrats, specifically Biden, were for the surge.

 

Bush has kept us safe here at home post-911, which is his job. But there's a reason his approval rating is something like 13% and that's b/c conservatives and liberals are BOTH pissed at him for various reasons. no one agrees with anyone 100% of the time.

 

Obama has a lot of promises that he simply can't fund (w/ the bailout happening now) unless he taxes the hell out of us, which means more gov't. it'll hurt our economy and the world economy. if our gov't is so broken/inefficient now, why would adding to it be the answer?

[SoMuch4Gravity]

New york times is quite right wing you idiot. Lastly, go ahead waste your vote, voting for a no mark old schizo who suffers flashbacks alongside a hockey slut against the guy who just come from 'nowhere' to beat Hilary, the supposed savior and great hope of Democrats for the last 10 years only demonstates his gravitas as a leader. I shouldn't worry though as some nut like you who can't accept the taste of the reality flavoured world will no doubt want to request Obama removes his fingers from 'your pocket' before firing several rounds into his torso.

 

lol, seriously where do you live?

[hamstrung]

There was some American bird on the radio yesterday, she was the last woman to run for VP in the 80's. She was astonished at the breadth of knowledge of our political leaders (Gordon Brown specifically). She suggested that the American "versions" wouldn't get anywhere near the top in our political system, because they simply don't have the intellect.

 

Not sure I entirely agree, but as those Yanks like to say "Its a whole different ball game".

[dennis tooth]

lol, seriously where do you live?

 

Your an idiot, not in my league so I won't waste my time. I will tell you wherer I don't live-Alaska. You'll have to make do with that.

[hamstrung]

Igor Biscan, despite his apparent disdain for capital letters, is rocking the house in this thread.

[SoMuch4Gravity]

mccain / obama contributions from freddie mac and fannie mae:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Fact Check: Did Obama ‘profit’ from Fannie and Freddie? « - Blogs from CNN.com

 

btw, economy wise, i agree with you. these morons running around acting as if regulation is going cause this entire financial mess are absolutely retarded. i'd be interested to know how much money some of these guys are getting from accounting and law firms that will clean up once some of these regulations come into play.

 

as far as ayers go - look, even if he did help him launch his career, and they did some speeches together, what exactly is the issue here? should every single person ever associated with ayers be disqualified from public office? if i'm not mistaken, there were a lot of republicans and former reagen administration officials involved in these same boards. like it or not, he's a respected member of ths chicago political establishment, any politician from the area is likely to have some sort of connections with him.

 

as far as wright goes, obviously obama knew he held some radical views. but at the same time, the man has done a lot of good in this world - in some of the poorest areas of the country. we have to stop viewing things in black and white - the world is grey. i don't care if obama was practicing witchcraft as long as he could instill enough confidence in investors to get the dow near 15,000 again.

 

like i said, politics is a dirty business, for every rezko that obama is associated with, i could bring up a charles keating (who btw, SHOULD be in jail for the rest of his life) on the part of mccain? what's the point? how does that help solve america's problems? it's all just noise clouding the real issues.

 

is there anything factually incorrect in the rolling stone piece you'd like to bring up, or newsweek or new york times articles i mentioned? it's easy to dismiss them as left wing propaganda, but that's a knee jerk reaction. mccain is an hot tempered buffoon who shouldn't be let anywhere near the white house.

 

i don't know how you can compare a lack of judgement in choosing friends 20 years ago to the lack of judgement involved in invading iraq. i don't know how any fiscal conservative can support someone with such a moronic mortgage buy back scheme, who has supported such ballooning deficits, and who thinks cutting earmarks are the biggest obstacle to fixing government spending. look at the national debt since bush took over - these republican programs just simply don't work!

 

is there a media bias? of course. part of it is admiration - obama wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but he was able to live the american dream, succeed beyond anyones wildest expectations. who would have given him any chance against hillary clinton 2 years ago? the other part is the media getting tired of the lying and manipulative mccain campaign, and realizing his whole "straight talker" shtick was a facade. mccain has no one to blame but himself for surrounding himself with the same people he condemned in 2000.

 

i'd like some figures on this world poverty act assertion btw. thanks.

 

World Poverty Act info

 

The thing I want to clarify, if I haven't already (my apologies), is that I'm not for McCain. Neither of these candidates come close to my beliefs on limited gov't, free market economy, economics in general, healthcare, or many other issues.

 

Other than Dennis Tooth, who can't see which way things are flying at him, I don't think anyone else here is daft, I just have different beliefs than most of you. But I'm not going to demonize you for it.

 

Sorry about site/cite.

 

I think just about any news sources that doesn't show both sides in context is pointless. Left and right wing publications tend to find a number that shows what they want and run with it. Or, they completely ignore omit pertinent information.

 

I'm not looking to covert any of you, and I couldn't care less about being made fun of (I probably find it more funny than most), it's just that Obama's lack of experience and his liberal policies are not in the best interest of me and my family. Why should I vote for him?

 

I still haven't heard any specifics on how he's going to make life better for us, keep us safe, give us more money to work with, give us the opportunity to keep the best doctors in the world, know how to handle foreign dictators, manage the energy crisis (he actually told us to inflate our tires...) etc. etc.

 

I'm all ears, convince me he's the right choice other than "b/c you should believe what I do".

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Bush has kept us safe here at home post-911, which is his job. But there's a reason his approval rating is something like 13% and that's b/c conservatives and liberals are BOTH pissed at him for various reasons. no one agrees with anyone 100% of the time.

Far be it from me to piss on Boy George's one remaining chip, but those attacks in 2001 did happen on his watch. If keeping Americans safe at home is the measure of the President's job, then George W Bush has done a worse job than any President since the Civil War.

[SoMuch4Gravity]

Far be it from me to piss on Boy George's one remaining chip, but those attacks in 2001 did happen on his watch. If keeping Americans safe at home is the measure of the President's job, then George W Bush has done a worse job than any President since the Civil War.

 

true, but my post said "post' 911. That attack caught the entire world by surprise. I'll never forget that moment. that's 'our moment'. for my parents it was the kennedy assassination.

 

Like I've mentioned, I probably agree w/ GW as much as you do, i'm not in the business of blindly supporting anything. But if that's his last chip, it was a damn good one.

 

off to work fellas, PM me if you'd like to talk about something RE: politics in general, i've taken us off topic enough. or tell everyone on here, why Obama's qualified.

[Strontium]

I'm very conservative financially, which is why i'm livid at the mortgage crisis and the subsequent bailout.

 

 

I'd presume you're also kinda pissed at Bush turning a record budget surplus into a record deficit, which makes it all the more puzzling that you're willing to vote for Dubya Mark II

 

 

Obama has a lot of promises that he simply can't fund (w/ the bailout happening now) unless he taxes the hell out of us

 

 

Oh, he's going to tax the hell out of you - if you're in the top 1% of earners:

 

 

 

which means more gov't.

 

 

Hasn't Bush presided over the largest expansion of federal government since FDR? It's gonna take one hell of an effort by Obama to expand that still further.

[SoMuch4Gravity]

Hasn't Bush presided over the largest expansion of federal government since FDR? It's gonna take one hell of an effort by Obama to expand that still further.

 

via democratic congress spending, yes. Bush one said "no new taxes" there were taxes. Clinton said no new taxes, there were taxes. Bush II, moronic spending in addition to out of check congressional spending.

 

more taxes means more costs getting passed on to consumers, fewer benefits, corporate corruption (to hide money they're making), fewer raises, fewer jobs, more gov't spending, more deficit, yada...yada...yada...

 

be glad you are where you are, looking bleak over here. now, work :(

[igor biscan]

again, the myth of the democratic congress overruling bush and causing general chaos appears - its false! they just got a majority less then 2 years ago...2000-2006, when most of this spending occurred, was under the noses of a republican house majority.

[dennis tooth]

This guy is seriously idiotic. I think he is the fellow who came on here a few weeks barack defending H and G and getting outed then running away. No one is going to vote McCain based on what you say or how right wing publications dressed as left wing or liberal such as the New York times. You don't have any mainstream left wing media in the US of states as it was all bought up by big conglomerates a long time ago. These do not speak for the people.

How you conclude that 60 houses McCain is going to grapple with the economy and makes decisions based on the interests of your family when he is ready to go to world war tonight if he could and will if he gets in power, you really are strange. I can only conclude that you are, being Hicks mate and all, batting for the other side, otherwise declare your interest in LFC?

[Stu Monty]

He kept us safe? From what? He's used fear to feather his own fucking nest because a vast number of people will believe what they're told about "Terrorists".

 

He's a fucking war criminal and you voting for him condemns your morals and intellect.

 

If you can't see the intellect gap between the two tickets then you completely deserve John McCain to take over and bleed you dry to look after the top 1%.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Of course he's kept US citizens safe from terrorist attack in the USA... most of the time.

 

Put it this way, in 2002 no-one died; in 2003 no-one died; in 2004 no-one died; I mean, I could go on

 

[YOUTUBE]ob1rYlCpOnM[/YOUTUBE]

[RoboRiise]

[YOUTUBE]1SPWgodul_E[/YOUTUBE]

[Stu Monty]

"Peter! You've lost the news!"