NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't you mean "Iraq Hussein Osama"?

Seriously, I don't want him to win the nomination. I'm sorry, but he ain't gonna get elected.


SPEED AT 88! TIME WAAAAAARP!!!

I would like to take this opportunity to officially endorse Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill.) for the office of the President of the United States for the 2008 election of said office.

Reasons:
1. He is young and will bring fresh blood into an old office.
2. He has stated his intention to cleanup Washington.
3. He has stated that we must withdraw from Iraq ASAP.
4. Other reasons may apply, but will never be based on skin color.

So, whatch'y'all think of him?

I would like to take this opportunity to officially endorse Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill.) for the office of the President of the United States for the 2008 election of said office.

Reasons:
1. He is young and will bring fresh blood into an old office.
2. He has stated his intention to cleanup Washington.
3. He has stated that we must withdraw from Iraq ASAP.
4. Other reasons may apply, but will never be based on skin color.

So, whatch'y'all think of him?

Seems decent so far. Right now, my support would go to him or John Edwards, I wouldn't mind seeing an Edwards/Obama ticket, but they'd never win.

Seems decent so far. Right now, my support would go to him or John Edwards, I wouldn't mind seeing an Edwards/Obama ticket, but they'd never win.

Edwards is also fairly good. He didn't want to concede, but Kerry was like...well...Kerry. ;)

I think that he and the other front runners are clay pigeons that will get sniped and cut at as if they where already the nominee by the Republicans and bloggers and when Iowa and New Hampshire happen suddenly, out of nowhere there'll be the actual candidate.

Though this time we have Republican primaries, too, so the focus won't be so overwhelming.

This opinion is based on too few Presidential elections I've watched to take too seriously, but if I'm right at least one person has to admit I rock.

He seems to be the best politician I've seen in years... possibly the best politician ever...- a very debatable statement, eh?
Anyway I'd vote for him, not cause hes black but because hes honest, I mean he spent 4 years doing charity work before going to Law School, who does that? Thats down right respectable.

I guess my opinion of him is mildly favorable, for opposing the Iraq War the way he does.

I don't really know much more about him.

Don't you mean "Iraq Hussein Osama"?

Seriously, I don't want him to win the nomination. I'm sorry, but he ain't gonna get elected.


SPEED AT 88! TIME WAAAAAARP!!!

I agree; even if he is not terrorist or pro-terrorist, i STILL don't like the idea of a man with "Hussein" in his name being President of the United States; the thought of that just sounds scary to me.

I would like to take this opportunity to officially endorse Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill.) for the office of the President of the United States for the 2008 election of said office.

Reasons:
1. He is young and will bring fresh blood into an old office.
2. He has stated his intention to cleanup Washington.
3. He has stated that we must withdraw from Iraq ASAP.
4. Other reasons may apply, but will never be based on skin color.

So, whatch'y'all think of him?

I like reasons 1 and 2, but I don't plan to vote for him because:
1. His middle name is "Hussein", which by itself turns me off to him
2. After the 9/11 attacks, I just don't feel comfortable with a Muslim in the White House; that idea sounds to me a little bit (I SAID A LITTLE BIT) like the fox guarding the henhouse, depending on how radical or moderate a Muslim he is. I understand that more Muslims than not are moderate, peace-loving, live-and-let-live, and tolerant, but just enough of them are terrorists that I don't feel comfortable with ANY of them being elected President of the USA. Sorry if that offends anybody, but that's the way I feel.

However, I will take the Iraq war thing a step further than what you said: I think we NEVER SHOULD HAVE GONE THERE TO BEGIN WITH. We should be in Afghanistan, looking for Osama (as in Bin Laden; not to be confused with US Senator Obama).

I don't know too much about him, but he comes across as likable. Once I know more about him, I could form a better opinion but as of now I find him to be a pretty decent guy.

I wish to announce that I do not support the candidate Barack Hussein Osama as President; as he is a coward, and would make the same mistake that Clinton made by withdrawing out of a country.

I do support him as Demoratic Candidate though; since he will be the best thing for the Republican Party

Why the fuck does his middle name matter? That's fucking stupid. Look at the man's stances and beleifs, not at his name, for christ's sake!

And I fully endorse Barack Obama as well.

2. After the 9/11 attacks, I just don't feel comfortable with a Muslim in the White House; that idea sounds to me a little bit (I SAID A LITTLE BIT)like the fox guarding the henhouse, depending on how radical or moderate a Muslim he is.

A) He's Christian, not a Muslim.

B) What the fuck does it matter what his religion is? Focus on his policies.

I think that Obama's constitutional law professorship would be a very nice yin to Bush's Constitution-raping yang. Just putting that thought out there.

I don't know too much about him, but he comes across as likable. Once I know more about him, I could form a better opinion but as of now I find him to be a pretty decent guy.
This (http://nymag.com/news/politics/21681/index.html) is a pretty good start.

Why the fuck does his middle name matter? That's fucking stupid. Look at the man's stances and beleifs, not at his name, for christ's sake!
Troll. Troll!

Honestly, I seriously doubt that anyone could be that stupid.

Or at least I hope so.

I don't like his views on Gun Control. Aside from that, he's a good candidate.

Barack Hussein Osama

ok guys, serious question - why are right wingers so uniformly tired and unfunny?

Meh, not a fan.

Troll. Troll!

Honestly, I seriously doubt that anyone could be that stupid.

Or at least I hope so.

See, I'd beleive he was a troll, but he ain't the first one. If it were just one I'd shrug it off, but I've heard it from five different people today alone.

They appear to be capable of being just that stupid.

I was not attempting to be funny, and I am not tired either

I hope he loses. Why? i am tired of hearing everyone talk about him. If he loses, evryone will forget about him for a while.

...possibly the best politician ever...- a very debatable statement, eh?

Extremely so

On-topic, I honestly don't know where he stands. I'm unlikely to vote for him, given his voting record, but it'd still be nice to know. The media hasn't been too keen on telling us all, and given that this is the American media talking about a Democrat, that's never a good thing.

I was not attempting to be funny

that's even worse

I honestly don't know where he stands. I'm unlikely to vote for him, given his voting record

??

Don't you mean "Iraq Hussein Osama"?

Seriously, I don't want him to win the nomination. I'm sorry, but he ain't gonna get elected.


SPEED AT 88! TIME WAAAAAARP!!!

not as funny as Black Osama (because that actually makes a weird right-wing sense). I'm sorry, but your say ain't final. Forgive my under-the-rock-ness, but what is this time warp that it getting bandied around?

i seriously wonder tho if his election would lead to massive race riots, since previous discussions on the topic highlight a none-too-accepting South. i have always been convinced that one, if not the, main reason to find OJ Simpson innocent was to avoid a repeat of the Rodney King riots.

The last thing we need is to drive the muslim world crazier by electing an apostate to office.

He's way too socially liberal for me, and I don't think he has enough foreign policy experience. He is a charismatic individual, whom everyone seems to personally like, but I don't think that's enough to win an election.

It's one thing to speak of how we must unite and how great America is (what every US politician says), but it's another entirely when you get down to the specifics of what to do.

As for Edwards, he is a completely unqualified politician. The guy hasn't done anything with his life-he hasn't led soldiers, he hasn't led a corporation, he hasn't led a labor union, nothing.

Oh, excuse me, I do seem to recall a case where he won $6 million by using junk science. So I guess he's could at something after all.

I'm sure the Democratic Party primaries will consume him.

He's way too socially liberal for me, and I don't think he has enough foreign policy experience. He is a charismatic individual, whom everyone seems to personally like, but I don't think that's enough to win an election.

Sure, his degree is in Political Science with a focus in International Relations. Sure, he's on the Senate Foreign Affairs committee. Of course he has too little experience. Because, you know, being involved in the actual foreign affairs of the nation isn't as good experience as being a Governor, eh?

im glad he's running. he's a good speaker who can inspire people.

we've had other black candidates for president but none with such a good chance to be a real contender. its a good thing.

I hope he loses. Why? i am tired of hearing everyone talk about him. If he loses, evryone will forget about him for a while.

you're tired of people discussing a Presidential candidate?
isn't it a good thing to think about who to vote for?

I hate Obama, both because his supporters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxEe5LYlqkw) make me want to strangle a left-wing comedian until the eyes pop out his head, and because he is far too cleanly produced.

Sure, his degree is in Political Science with a focus in International Relations. Sure, he's on the Senate Foreign Affairs committee. Of course he has too little experience. Because, you know, being involved in the actual foreign affairs of the nation isn't as good experience as being a Governor, eh?
Agreed. Obama is far more experienced than most presidents in recent memory.

Also, one thing I've never understood: why is congressional experience considered necessary in order to run for President? They're two completely different types of jobs.

I hate Obama, both because his supporters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxEe5LYlqkw) make me want to strangle a left-wing comedian until the eyes pop out his head, and because he is far too cleanly produced.

If he is produced at all, it is not a particularly heavy production. He just seems to combine more clean-ness than our average Presidential candidate and a teflon nature not dissimilar to Reagan's.

If he is produced at all, it is not a particularly heavy production. He just seems to combine more clean-ness than our average Presidential candidate and a teflon nature not dissimilar to Reagan's.
Of course the man is clean, he's a rich, white boy whose mother sent him to an affluent private school where he did rich, white boy drugs. This, in itself, doesn't make him any different from the rest of the Senate, but for some reason he thinks he can pass himself off as a black friend of the people just because he had a Kenyan father (never mind the fact that his father left when he was 2 years old).
He is a rich, yuppie asshole, who only made it into the Senate because his early rivals were to busy getting divorced to mount effective campaigns.

He is a rich, yuppie asshole, who only made it into the Senate because his early rivals were to busy getting divorced to mount effective campaigns.

I blame Ditka.

However, I disagree with your earlier claim. Obama is most definitely black. As we all well know, you may have no more than 1/16, or 6.3% black blood to qualify as White. Obama's 50% makes him quite black indeed. Just to clear that up.

Doesn't much matter what I think of him, as no Democrat or Republican will be getting my vote for quite some time, by the looks of things.

That said, he's by far the best Democrat running so far.

However, I disagree with your earlier claim. Obama is most definitely black. As we all well know, you may have no more than 1/16, or 6.3% black blood to qualify as White. Obama's 50% makes him quite black indeed. Just to clear that up.
As black as new fallen snow.

Of course the man is clean, he's a rich, white boy whose mother sent him to an affluent private school where he did rich, white boy drugs. This, in itself, doesn't make him any different from the rest of the Senate, but for some reason he thinks he can pass himself off as a black friend of the people just because he had a Kenyan father (never mind the fact that his father left when he was 2 years old).
He is a rich, yuppie asshole, who only made it into the Senate because his early rivals were to busy getting divorced to mount effective campaigns.

In 1985, he moved to Chicago to direct a non-profit project assisting local churches to organize job training programs for residents of poor neighborhoods.

Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988. In February 1990, he gained national recognition for becoming the first African American to be elected president of the Harvard Law Review. He obtained his J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991. On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive, then worked for the civil rights law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.
Certainly sounds like a spoiled-rich-brat kind of guy. :rolleyes:

Certainly sounds like a spoiled-rich-brat kind of guy. :rolleyes:

Not to mention the fact that he was working for $13,000 a year in the Community organizer position.

I wish to announce that I do not support the candidate Barack Hussein Osama as President; as he is a coward, and would make the same mistake that Clinton made by withdrawing out of a country.

I do support him as Demoratic Candidate though; since he will be the best thing for the Republican Party

What I said, but you said it better :)

Let Obama (and or Obama on an Edwards ticket for all I care) win the nomination. THey are the best the democrats haveto offer, but nothing to scare the republicans..

PS - I say this as a non-voting US residents observer :D

I like Obama, not as much as I like McCain, but I like Obama. He seems genuine, something which I can appreciate.

Obama is exactly what we need right now in a president. I've been waiting for an idealist for quite a while. Obama is competent, idealistic, charismatic, and determined. He also gives us a chance to make history, which is a nice plus. Unlike any other politician I've ever seen, I actually like to hear him speak. He gives me a sense of hope that I feel is desperately needed.

Oh, and he smokes. It's about time the US got off of this bullshit puritan-on-everything streak and elected a proper smoker.

Not to knock Bush's cigar smoking, but, well, that really doesn't measure up to Obama's proper smoking.

Oh, and he smokes. It's about time the US got off of this bullshit puritan-on-everything streak and elected a proper smoker.

Not to knock Bush's cigar smoking, but, well, that really doesn't measure up to Obama's proper smoking.

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/190/smokerpw1.png

Fair and balanced.

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/190/smokerpw1.png

Fair and balanced.

The answer to the question (not the fair and balanced one, that's bullshit, Fox ain't fair and balanced) is yes.

I would like to take this opportunity to officially endorse Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill.) for the office of the President of the United States for the 2008 election of said office.

Reasons:
1. He is young and will bring fresh blood into an old office.
2. He has stated his intention to cleanup Washington.
3. He has stated that we must withdraw from Iraq ASAP.
4. Other reasons may apply, but will never be based on skin color.

So, whatch'y'all think of him?

I was under the impression he was for a cap on US troops in Iraq, and favored a delayed withdrawl, for sometime in 2008....

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/190/smokerpw1.png

Fair and balanced.

Lets not get too original here. -.-

This man seems truly genuine. He gives hope in his speeches. His 4 years of charity work, his community civic mind, and his truly idealist views are the best we could hope for in a politician in the upcoming race.

He can bring zest, and hope to the Presidency. When have we had a politician gives speeches that raise hope, that seem so full of life, and that seem so sincere?

With this man, even if it is a trick of charisma, you just have to hear him speak and feel the sparking energy. He radiates sincerity.

We NEED someone like this in the White House, someone who can give hope to the people and INSPIRE.

Look at our alternatives! Rudolph Giuliani (Heavy Handed Politician and Greedy Businessman), Hillary Clinton (Political Witch, Entrenched Power Family), John Edwards (Typical Social Climbing Wealthy White Politician)

The alternatives seem to be Hillary Clinton *spits* or John "Let's sacrifice more troops to the disaster that is Iraq" McCain, so Obama all the way. I agree with previous posts, I think he's genuine and honest as politicians go, and he has moderate views. Although I don't know much about Giuliani or Edwards to pass judgement, though it doesn't seem like they're likely ATM.

And on Obama's name, apparently the name of a politician tells a lot about their character, such as when a president was elected because he had the same name as a previous president? :p

you're tired of people discussing a Presidential candidate?
isn't it a good thing to think about who to vote for?

I am tired of everyone blowing him up to be some messiah for america. Look at his record for his state seat in my state of Illinois. He didn't do anything significant at all. I'd much rather have a kook like Hillary in there then a do nothing guy, that popular because he gave one awesome speech 2 years ago.

I am tired of everyone blowing him up to be some messiah for america. Look at his record for his state seat in my state of Illinois. He didn't do anything significant at all. I'd much rather have a kook like Hillary in there then a do nothing guy, that popular because he gave one awesome speech 2 years ago.

It is not just about his speech 2 years ago, it is about his Presidential Announcement speech at Springfield, ILL. It is about his speeches in many places.

He is sincere, authentic, and genuine. Even if in appearance, he can give America what is needs. A lot more than any of those stale politicians that have already been corrupted by the system (obviously) or come from power families arlaedy.

His sincerity and his zest for life are apparent in his speeches. He seems to truly care, and is an sincere idealist. He did community service before he was going anywhere but college, and was very community minded.

He will appeal to African-American voters, even though I am not African-American that is just one of the major groups he will appeal to among MANY others.

The man has universal appeal, and everything for the makeup of a public figure. He will at least be a Presidential Candidate I predict because of this. I am sure though the Puppetmasters of government will try to use him as a Puppet and pull his strings, using his charisma negatively. I hope not.

I would like to take this opportunity to officially endorse Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill.) for the office of the President of the United States for the 2008 election of said office.

Reasons:
1. He is young and will bring fresh blood into an old office.
2. He has stated his intention to cleanup Washington.
3. He has stated that we must withdraw from Iraq ASAP.
4. Other reasons may apply, but will never be based on skin color.

So, whatch'y'all think of him?

I might vote for him, despite the fact that you will. He seems much more likely to win than Hillary and pretty reasonable.

Oh, and he smokes. It's about time the US got off of this bullshit puritan-on-everything streak and elected a proper smoker.

Not to knock Bush's cigar smoking, but, well, that really doesn't measure up to Obama's proper smoking.

What does it matter? That's kinda his own issue, not mine, irrelevant to whether or not I think he'd make a good president. Though, I'm sure his family would like it if he quit.

So far I haven't seen anything of substance to make me dislike him.

I'm an Australian so I won't vote in the poll.

One thing has intrigued me about the thread is that there has been very little discussion about his policies other than the widely publicised withdrawal of troops in Iraq.

What do people think of his policies on the following:
Global warming
Nuclear disarmament
Wealth redistribution
Free and fair trade
Social Justice

I don't need to be told what his policies are - I have been to his website. Rather than argue about his name, his colour or his experience what do people think about his policies?

BTW, I liked the way he put down John Howard who spoke out of turn and thoroughly deserved it.

Hell no. I hate him. I don't know why, but Obama Bin Laden makes me homicidal for some reason....

EDITED TO ADD:
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/190/smokerpw1.png
:eek:

Now I hate his guts even more. I fucking HATE smokers! :mad:

Hell no. I hate him. I don't know why, but Obama Bin Laden makes me homicidal for some reason....

Oh I think your reason is quite clear :rolleyes:





:eek:

Now I hate his guts even more. I fucking HATE smokers! :mad:

Ah yes, because smoking has been well known to interfere with presidential skills. It's often on the warning, right next to "may cause cancer"...


But seriously, I hope this guy gets voted. It will completely renew my faith in the American people if he gets elected.

The fact that he (or his aides anyway) bitchslapped our toad of a PM, John Howard makes me like him even more.

I'm sorry, but he ain't gonna get elected.

This circular argument "I won't vote for him because no one will vote for him" seems to be coming up a lot, and I don't quite see how you can even think it makes sense.

Is it codespeak for "I won't vote for a black guy" or "his name isn't western enough" ?

I fucking HATE smokers! :mad:

That's OK...smokers hate you.

That's OK...smokers hate you.

didn't your town outlaw smoking in bars and bowling alleys?

I was under the impression he was for a cap on US troops in Iraq, and favored a delayed withdrawl, for sometime in 2008....

Exactly how is he supposed to order a withdrawl before 2008 - you know - given that Bush will be president until then...

Exactly how is he supposed to order a withdrawl before 2008 - you know - given that Bush will be president until then...

That is something that confused me.

It would be good if a more politically informed NSGer could enlighten us.

That is something that confused me.

It would be good if a more politically informed NSGer could enlighten us.

congress can technically outlaw the use of the military in iraq, or merely refuse to fund the imperial adventure anymore. but since bush doesn't much care for laws or the realities of paying for things there is always the torches, pitchforks, and rope method.

congress can technically outlaw the use of the military in iraq, or merely refuse to fund the imperial adventure anymore. but since bush doesn't much care for laws or the realities of paying for things there is always the torches, pitchforks, and rope method.

I think the President can also run a war funded with the White House equivalent of petty cash - AFAIK that is how the Vietnam War was funded for a while.

I could be wrong though.

At any rate - if congress suspend funding for the troops in Iraq then Bush can shift all the blame over to Congress.

congress can technically outlaw the use of the military in iraq, or merely refuse to fund the imperial adventure anymore. but since bush doesn't much care for laws or the realities of paying for things there is always the torches, pitchforks, and rope method.


Can donations be made to assist the second method?

I think that he and the other front runners are clay pigeons that will get sniped and cut at as if they where already the nominee by the Republicans and bloggers and when Iowa and New Hampshire happen suddenly, out of nowhere there'll be the actual candidate.

Though this time we have Republican primaries, too, so the focus won't be so overwhelming.

This opinion is based on too few Presidential elections I've watched to take too seriously, but if I'm right at least one person has to admit I rock.

I'll admit that now. You rock. :)

This circular argument "I won't vote for him because no one will vote for him" seems to be coming up a lot, and I don't quite see how you can even think it makes sense.

Is it codespeak for "I won't vote for a black guy" or "his name isn't western enough" ?

Well, I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton in the primary because she doesn't stand a chance. I mean, she has a couple fans, but the "I hate Hillary's guts" contingent is way larger. She just doesn't have her husband's charisma. At all.

Barack Obama on the other hand seems to be more likeable.

President Slapper for the win.
Thanks for asking.

Exactly how is he supposed to order a withdrawl before 2008 - you know - given that Bush will be president until then...

He is for the plan of withdrawal by 2008. If he gets elected and withdraws the troops, he'll probably say something like, "I thought we should have done this last year."

This thread contains some of the most idiotic statements I've ever seen. Refusing to vote for someone because you don't like their name? Someone whose "reasonsing" is that fundamentally stupid should not have the right to vote.

A citizen's responsability is to be informed and think before casting their vote. If you're too lazy to be informed and too lazy or too stupid to use your brain, you shouldn't be voting.

Anyway, from what I know of Obama so far, I would probably vote for him if I were American. He has ideals I can agree with, he seems honest and he makes sense.

Not that I'm American, but I'll be casting a few hundred votes for Obama. ;)

Hey, Ariddia, I haven't given my idiotic opinion yet.

Look at how he speaks, as if deliberately slowing his natural pattern. He wants to rave and lash out, but he's sticking to the script.

This guy will self-destruct in the primaries.
/uninformed opinion.

Barack is a bright and charismatic person, which makes him a good politician. The question is, does he believe he works for the people? Since he apparently does not believe in the United States Constitution, I'd have to say, "no."

Barack is a bright and charismatic person, which makes him a good politician. The question is, does he believe he works for the people? Since he apparently does not believe in the United States Constitution, I'd have to say, "no."

huh?

huh?

He what now? Since when?

jinx

didn't your town outlaw smoking in bars and bowling alleys?

Total smoking ban in all businesses...including bars.

Sucks, cause no other town around here has a ban. Downtown sees less foot traffic that any other time since I've lived here, and the tavern league is pissed.

Doyle's finally stopped dragging ass on a statewide ban though, so we'll see.

I gotta say, while I'm usually for the smoking ban, despite being a smoker, these past couple of weeks have really sucked...what with the -30 wind chills. :mad: :(

Since he apparently does not believe in the United States Constitution, I'd have to say, "no."

He what now? Since when?


Woo, I posted into the future!
*posts at 88mph*

Of course the man is clean, he's a rich, white boy whose mother sent him to an affluent private school where he did rich, white boy drugs. This, in itself, doesn't make him any different from the rest of the Senate, but for some reason he thinks he can pass himself off as a black friend of the people just because he had a Kenyan father (never mind the fact that his father left when he was 2 years old).
He is a rich, yuppie asshole, who only made it into the Senate because his early rivals were to busy getting divorced to mount effective campaigns.
So his time as a community organizer in Chicago means nothing I suppose? Come off it, Fiddles--you wouldn't support him in any case because doing so doesn't fit into your persona as a contrarian who shits on anything and everything in sight.

Oh, and he smokes. It's about time the US got off of this bullshit puritan-on-everything streak and elected a proper smoker.

Not to knock Bush's cigar smoking, but, well, that really doesn't measure up to Obama's proper smoking.

According to the Rolling Stone article, he's quitting--it was part of the deal he made with his wife. If he ran for President, he had to quit. Apparently, the nicotine fits were working him pretty hard on the campaign trail during the research for the piece.

According to the Rolling Stone article, he's quitting--it was part of the deal he made with his wife. If he ran for President, he had to quit. Apparently, the nicotine fits were working him pretty hard on the campaign trail during the research for the piece.
hats off to him. If he manages to quit successfully by election day, I'll vote for him.

He what now? Since when?


Woo, I posted into the future!
*posts at 88mph*

For one, I know he does not support 2nd Amendment rights. A person either believes in freedom or they don't. You can't just pick the parts you want or like.

For one, I know he does not support 2nd Amendment rights. A person either believes in freedom or they don't. You can't just pick the parts you want or like.

But.......yes you can.



Oh hang on, hold everything, stop the presses.


Are you actually saying he hates freedom? Or even better, are you saying he hates Freedom(TM)?

I agree; even if he is not terrorist or pro-terrorist, i STILL don't like the idea of a man with "Hussein" in his name being President of the United States; the thought of that just sounds scary to me.

Pathetic. Go hide under your bed.

I like reasons 1 and 2, but I don't plan to vote for him because:
1. His middle name is "Hussein", which by itself turns me off to him
2. After the 9/11 attacks, I just don't feel comfortable with a Muslim in the White House; that idea sounds to me a little bit (I SAID A LITTLE BIT) like the fox guarding the henhouse, depending on how radical or moderate a Muslim he is. I understand that more Muslims than not are moderate, peace-loving, live-and-let-live, and tolerant, but just enough of them are terrorists that I don't feel comfortable with ANY of them being elected President of the USA. Sorry if that offends anybody, but that's the way I feel.


1) Perhaps you should just keep track of 'American Idol' or something equally non-threatening, you easily-frightened person, you.

2) Pathetic. And offensive.

Dobbs, isn't it appalling when you realise that this guy's vote is worth as much as yours?

For one, I know he does not support 2nd Amendment rights. A person either believes in freedom or they don't. You can't just pick the parts you want or like.

Bush wants to repeal EVERY AMMENDMENT BUT the second. And you claim Obama doesn't believe in freedom? Cream of mushroom soup is made with champignons, not with the ones you used!

For one, I know he does not support 2nd Amendment rights. A person either believes in freedom or they don't. You can't just pick the parts you want or like.

Are we talking about absolute freedom? You're an anarchist?

Dobbs, isn't it appalling when you realise that this guy's vote is worth as much as yours?

It's all the more appalling insofar as I cannot vote in American elections (as I am not an American). His actual vote is in fact much more valuable than my theoretical one.

Obama is exactly what we need right now in a president. I've been waiting for an idealist for quite a while. Obama is competent, idealistic, charismatic, and determined. He also gives us a chance to make history, which is a nice plus. Unlike any other politician I've ever seen, I actually like to hear him speak. He gives me a sense of hope that I feel is desperately needed.
Thank you! I'm not the only one out there that thinks that way.

Sure Obama doesn't have as much experience as some other contenders, but maybe that's exactly what we need right now. We need fresh ideas in this nation. He's a very good speaker. When you look at Bush and Kerry, in Bush's case...well let's just say when he actually has to say something on his own rather than reading off a piece of paper it's blatantly hilarious. When Kerry gave a speech, he was too stiff. He knew what he was talking about unlike Bush, but it still sort of put you to sleep. Kerry had no personality. I like watching Obama. He's smart, he has excellent speaking skills, and he seems like a nice guy.

I personally would like Edwards and Obama to be in the White House. I'm a huge fan of Edwards, but I'd really like to see Obama in there as well. The two of them are the best the Democrats have. Especially compared to Hillary Clinton.

I agree; even if he is not terrorist or pro-terrorist, i STILL don't like the idea of a man with "Hussein" in his name being President of the United States; the thought of that just sounds scary to me.



I like reasons 1 and 2, but I don't plan to vote for him because:
1. His middle name is "Hussein", which by itself turns me off to him
2. After the 9/11 attacks, I just don't feel comfortable with a Muslim in the White House; that idea sounds to me a little bit (I SAID A LITTLE BIT) like the fox guarding the henhouse, depending on how radical or moderate a Muslim he is. I understand that more Muslims than not are moderate, peace-loving, live-and-let-live, and tolerant, but just enough of them are terrorists that I don't feel comfortable with ANY of them being elected President of the USA. Sorry if that offends anybody, but that's the way I feel.

However, I will take the Iraq war thing a step further than what you said: I think we NEVER SHOULD HAVE GONE THERE TO BEGIN WITH. We should be in Afghanistan, looking for Osama (as in Bin Laden; not to be confused with US Senator Obama).

Good Lord man, are you for real? WTF does his middle name matter? And he's not Muslim, you idiot, he's Christian.

For one, I know he does not support 2nd Amendment rights. A person either believes in freedom or they don't. You can't just pick the parts you want or like.

So, undermining the other Amendments doesn't count, so long as you get to have a gun? :rolleyes:

Dobbs, isn't it appalling when you realise that this guy's vote is worth as much as yours?

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Winston Churchill

edit: anyway, can anyone say what would change in US foreign policy(im not american so its only thing that interests me) if obama would win?

His middle name aside I like him, I've not heard him say anything about his beliefs on freedoms, so we will see.

Olmedreca;12336323']The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Winston Churchill

And then you go from there and realise that half the voters are below average.

Imagine that - the least worst political system the human race has come up with in the last 10,000 or so years allows someone into the top job if they convince all the below average voters + one extra to tick their name on the ballot box.

For one, I know he does not support 2nd Amendment rights. A person either believes in freedom or they don't. You can't just pick the parts you want or like.

What you really mean is that he doesn't favor the ridiculous absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that you do, and so you don't support him. That's fair--stupid, but fair. Saying that he doesn't believe in freedom is just stupid.

Olmedreca;12336323']The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Winston Churchill

edit: anyway, can anyone say what would change in US foreign policy(im not american so its only thing that interests me) if obama would win?


This thread isn't about democracy, it's about Obama.

In October 2002, before being elected to the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama made a speech opposing the Bush Administration's plan to go to war in Iraq because he felt it was an ill-conceived venture which would "require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Now, as a U.S. Senator, Senator Obama has continued to critique the Administration's mishandling of this war, and believes that while our troops have done an outstanding job in Iraq, there can be no military solution to what is inherently a political conflict between Iraq's warring factions. The only hope to end this burgeoning civil war is for Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds to come together and resolve their differences. That's why Senator Obama agrees with the Iraq Study Group's conclusion that we must begin a phased redeployment of American troops to signal to the government and people of Iraq that ours is not an open-ended commitment.

I would like to take this opportunity to officially endorse Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill.) for the office of the President of the United States for the 2008 election of said office.

Reasons:
1. He is young and will bring fresh blood into an old office.
2. He has stated his intention to cleanup Washington.
3. He has stated that we must withdraw from Iraq ASAP.
4. Other reasons may apply, but will never be based on skin color.

So, whatch'y'all think of him?

Iraq; Firstly, thats blind populism. If it was expedient for Obama to advocate continued occupation, he would, whilst any other Presidential candidate will extol the same principles.

Young/Fresh Blood; Sensationalist twaddle. Any "young, vibrant, dynamic" politician would make the same contention, and since it does not necisstate an explicit policy, it is bereft of any meaning.

"Clean up Washington"; Same principle. Demagoguic posturing designed to appeal to the average joe. Does not necessitate substantiation by a policy, hence an expediant electoral tool.

Other reasons; The oration I heard from him was crude, tub-thumping, populist shouting, not worthy of a world leader.

His middle name aside I like him, I've not heard him say anything about his beliefs on freedoms, so we will see.

Why on earth is his middle name even an issue?

Why on earth is his middle name even an issue?

Because the public is an ass.

Why on earth is his middle name even an issue?

Some people feel that someone with a middle name like "Hussain" have the same feelings towards America as other people who share the same name.

With 300,000,000 Americans you end up with a dud every now and then...

Iraq; Firstly, thats blind populism. If it was expedient for Obama to advocate continued occupation, he would, whilst any other Presidential candidate will extol the same principles.

Young/Fresh Blood; Sensationalist twaddle. Any "young, vibrant, dynamic" politician would make the same contention, and since it does not necisstate an explicit policy, it is bereft of any meaning.

"Clean up Washington"; Same principle. Demagoguic posturing designed to appeal to the average joe. Does not necessitate substantiation by a policy, hence an expediant electoral tool.

Other reasons; The oration I heard from him was crude, tub-thumping, populist shouting, not worthy of a world leader.

All code for, "I'm racist and I hate him 'cuz he's black", from you, all things considered.

Besides which, the charge that Obama is a populist is absurd. Clinton is a Populist. Obama may engage in majoritarian politics, but that's just good politics.

All code for, "I'm racist and I hate him 'cuz he's black", from you, all things considered.

Besides which, the charge that Obama is a populist is absurd. Clinton is a Populist. Obama may engage in majoritarian politics, but that's just good politics.

No. Demagoguery does not quality as repsonsible politics. Effective; lamentably so, but hardly responsible.

Incidentally, has he given any explicit policies beyind the customary withdrawal?

No. Demagoguery does not quality as repsonsible politics. Effective; lamentably so, but hardly responsible.

Giving a good speech does not qualify as demagougery, it qualifies as being persuasive. Either way, populism is not demagougery. Populism is a set of political beliefs that are conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues.

Demagougery is it's own beast, and while it is nascent in politics, Obama has yet to engage in anything I would call demagougery.

Incidentally, has he given any explicit policies beyind the customary withdrawal?

He's specifically endorsed single-payer health-care before the end of his first term. There are other things on his website, but he hasn't given anthing very explicit.

On the other hand, have any of the other candidates given more than one explicit policy yet? Thought not.

Also, one thing I've never understood: why is congressional experience considered necessary in order to run for President? They're two completely different types of jobs.

Actually congressional experiance isn't considered necessary, in reality its considered a liability. This is primarly because there is a voting record opponents and critics can latch on to, so that no matter how you actually voted, it can be spun to look bad. That said, most presidential candiates have been senators... go figure.

The best kind of experiance considered for the presidency is of course govenorships... no voting record, and direct experiance in the executive brance (state gov that is).

Certainly sounds like a spoiled-rich-brat kind of guy. :rolleyes:
Doesn't it bother you that his wiki page reads like a college application?
So his time as a community organizer in Chicago means nothing I suppose?
Part of the production.
Come off it, Fiddles--you wouldn't support him in any case because doing so doesn't fit into your persona as a contrarian who shits on anything and everything in sight.
I'd support him if he weren't so goddamned shiney.

Hilary < Rudy
Hilary < McCain
Obama > Rudy
Obama > McCain

Al Gore > Manbearpig

Bush wants to repeal EVERY AMMENDMENT BUT the second. And you claim Obama doesn't believe in freedom? Cream of mushroom soup is made with champignons, not with the ones you used!

Really. Is that just because the 2nd is the one people would miss the most? They certainly wouldn't miss the 22nd, and if Bush pushes through a repeal of that one, 2008 might see Bush vs. Obama. And we all know what happens - Bush appeals to racist, socially-conservative, and traditional voters all over the nation and wins in a landslide.

Frankly, if Obama or Clinton is elected President, I can see a vocal minority calling for Bush not to give up the White House at all.

Even a moron can use a gun, and that moron's bullet might count more than millions of better-informed Americans' votes.
I didn't know about his voting record on the second. That's probably more of a risk factor than the tint of his skin, his second name and his Iraq policy put together.

I hope he's well protected right now. If I was him, I wouldn't even be giving speeches in the open air.

ok guys, serious question - why are right wingers so uniformly tired and unfunny?

Besides, I beat him to it. Look at the first post. I'm not a right-winger, I just like that title.

To quote a good man, "I'm getting tired of him flaunting his multi-racial background as if it has any bearing whatsoever on his ability to run a country. Yes Obama...I know you're black, I have eyes. I don't need you to remind me."

// five bucks says he flails out in the primaries //
// if he wins the primary and loses the election, you will NEVER hear the end of "Americans are so racist!" comments :rolleyes: //

To quote a good man, "I'm getting tired of him flaunting his multi-racial background as if it has any bearing whatsoever on his ability to run a country. Yes Obama...I know you're black, I have eyes. I don't need you to remind me."

QFT.

Some people feel that someone with a middle name like "Hussain" have the same feelings towards America as other people who share the same name.

With 300,000,000 Americans you end up with a dud every now and then...

Strategically speaking, the Democrats should either use a Hillary-Obama ticket or not have either on either position. Hillary-Obama might work because those that dislike one might like the other enough to vote. Neither would work because they're polarizing figures isolated. His last name is an issue because, unfortunately, the public is dumb, and Fox News would "by mistake" develop a habit of typoing Obama as Osama when showing his name.

Giving a good speech does not qualify as demagougery, it qualifies as being persuasive. Either way, populism is not demagougery. Populism is a set of political beliefs that are conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues.

Demagougery is it's own beast, and while it is nascent in politics, Obama has yet to engage in anything I would call demagougery.



He's specifically endorsed single-payer health-care before the end of his first term. There are other things on his website, but he hasn't given anthing very explicit.

On the other hand, have any of the other candidates given more than one explicit policy yet? Thought not.

Good speech? The man is crude, transparent, and lacking in eloquence.

In any case, populist is essentially demagoguic; appealing to the majority in any affair or issue, and I see Obama as little more than that.

Were I American, I'd hope Giuliani was a candidate regardless, but I simply feel that Obama is nothing. He hopes to defeat Hilary through bringing in ethnic votes, and then drum on about Iraq until he sits in the Oval Office.

Strategically speaking, the Democrats should either use a Hillary-Obama ticket or not have either on either position. Hillary-Obama might work because those that dislike one might like the other enough to vote. Neither would work because they're polarizing figures isolated. His last name is an issue because, unfortunately, the public is dumb, and Fox News would "by mistake" develop a habit of typoing Obama as Osama when showing his name.Which would be understandable, since the two figures are equally charming...

Which would be understandable, since the two figures are equally charming...

No, which would be an attempt to sway the election by faking a link that doesn't exist. Especially since Bush is making Bin Laden's "work" so much easier by waging war in Iraq and thus facilitating Al Qaeda recruiting.

Good speech? The man is crude, transparent, and lacking in eloquence.

In any case, populist is essentially demagoguic; appealing to the majority in any affair or issue, and I see Obama as little more than that.

Were I American, I'd hope Giuliani was a candidate regardless, but I simply feel that Obama is nothing. He hopes to defeat Hilary through bringing in ethnic votes, and then drum on about Iraq until he sits in the Oval Office.

Actually, he's also got a strong base with female voters. White ones.

// if he wins the primary and loses the election, you will NEVER hear the end of "Americans are so racist!" comments :rolleyes: //

We are actually.

Most people will vote for or against him based on his skin whether we want to admit it or not. Maybe that's why I get a good vibe from him, I dunno, although I cringe whenever I see Condi.

It would make sense for him to flaunt his skin color. Appeal to your base even if you'll reject a handful of moderates.

Actually, he's also got a strong base with female voters. White ones.

That might be because white, female democrat voters don't like looking in the mirror and seeing Hilary staring back at them.....:D

I daresay he has, being a young, decent looking bloke, however, I defy the will of any man to contend that a key element of an Obama victory would be ethnic votes.

That might be because white, female democrat voters don't like looking in the mirror and seeing Hilary staring back at them.....:D

I daresay he has, being a young, decent looking bloke, however, I defy the will of any man to contend that a key element of an Obama victory would be ethnic votes.

I defy people to do that, too. Let's defy - TOGETHER.

I defy people to do that, too. Let's defy - TOGETHER.

It's a deal!:D

In all sincerity, in broad terms, what is this bloke? Bona Fide left winger, or centrist?

It's a deal!:D

In all sincerity, in broad terms, what is this bloke? Bona Fide left winger, or centrist?

bloke = english term for "guy"

And all this speculation is nice, but really who belives Hilary is actualy going to LOSE the primary. She has far too much money, and way too many hardline supporters. She will win the primary and lose the presidency to the republicans for another 4 years! This is simply becuse she is either loved or hated... and to win, she has to get atleast SOME republicans (which in all reality cannot happen!)

bloke = english term for "guy"

And all this speculation is nice, but really who belives Hilary is actualy going to LOSE the primary. She has far too much money, and way too many hardline supporters. She will win the primary and lose the presidency to the republicans for another 4 years! This is simply becuse she is either loved or hated... and to win, she has to get atleast SOME republicans (which in all reality cannot happen!)

I'm well aware that Bloke=guy. I'm English.......:rolleyes:

As for Hilary, from what I can guage on NSG, isn't Obama more popular?

I would like to take this opportunity to officially endorse Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill.) for the office of the President of the United States for the 2008 election of said office.

Reasons:
1. He is young and will bring fresh blood into an old office.
2. He has stated his intention to cleanup Washington.
3. He has stated that we must withdraw from Iraq ASAP.
4. Other reasons may apply, but will never be based on skin color.

So, whatch'y'all think of him?

my thoughts on what you posted.

1) not neccessarily a good thing. I would rather an experienced person than "young blood" and note, Young does not mean Inexperienced. however, I don't think he's got enough under his belt just yet. maybe next term.

2) I've heard that from other politicians. so if He really did say that, then all he's doing is pandering to the voters... given them what they want to hear.

3) I was brought up that when you make a mistake, you fix it no matter the cost. so anyone who has the retoric of pulling out ASAP comes across as someone who breaks something then just sneaks away... letting someone else clean up the mess. (I've heard what he wants to do, which is different than just withdrawing from Iraq ASAP as you said. so your point 3 is actually incomplete and would end up turning me away.)

4) never a factor with me.

My last whacky suggestion for the night: don't field a Presidential candidate at all, Democrats.

Let the 'Pubs have that, they'll field a pro-war, neocon candidate, and count on an overwhelming majority in both houses in reaction.
Two out of three is damn good, and the Democrats won't take the blame for the big hole that GWB and a 'Pub Senate have dug.

A Democrat president with hostile or even balanced houses would be a disaster for the Dems. Not just the debt and the war, but stack it on top of Carter and Clinton and you've entrenched the idea "Demos are weak, and can't achieve anything."

No, which would be an attempt to sway the election by faking a link that doesn't exist. Like the link between Bin Laden and Hussein?
Especially since Bush is making Bin Laden's "work" so much easier by waging war in Iraq and thus facilitating Al Qaeda recruiting.Ok, ok, nevertheless Obama is annoying as is Osama.

It's a deal!:D

In all sincerity, in broad terms, what is this bloke? Bona Fide left winger, or centrist?

He's left enough that I'm excited if he were to become president. But not so left (green -- whatever) that I wouldn't trade him up for Nader.

bloke = english term for "guy"

And all this speculation is nice, but really who belives Hilary is actualy going to LOSE the primary. She has far too much money, and way too many hardline supporters. She will win the primary and lose the presidency to the republicans for another 4 years! This is simply becuse she is either loved or hated... and to win, she has to get atleast SOME republicans (which in all reality cannot happen!)

Not all Dems are swooning over Hilary. Unless Bill really starts to get out there and work whatever it is he works and put ten times more effort than he did when he was actually running for president, I don't think she'll win the primary.

Actually, he's also got a strong base with female voters. White ones.
You read the Rolling Stone article too, huh? ;)

Not all Dems are swooning over Hilary. Unless Bill really starts to get out there and work whatever it is he works and put ten times more effort than he did when he was actually running for president, I don't think she'll win the primary.

She's got nowhere to go but down--the curse of being the well-known early frontrunner.

You read the Rolling Stone article too, huh? ;)

It was great. It really made me like him. I'd like to hear some real dirt on him, though. Not just this middle name crap. And I like his stances on gun control. I hate getting shot.

It was great. It really made me like him. I'd like to hear some real dirt on him, though. Not just this middle name crap. And I like his stances on gun control. I hate getting shot.

I'm still holding out hope for a Gore-Obama ticket, but he's at the top of my list of current contenders for now. That's always subject to modification, of course.

I'm also hoping--even longer shot--that Gore announces for the Presidency while accepting his Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth." Can you imagine the uproar from the wingnuts? Oh my god!

I'm still holding out hope for a Gore-Obama ticket, but he's at the top of my list of current contenders for now. That's always subject to modification, of course.

I'm also hoping--even longer shot--that Gore announces for the Presidency while accepting his Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth." Can you imagine the uproar from the wingnuts? Oh my god!

I'm actually afraid...

General would blow up.

I agree; even if he is not terrorist or pro-terrorist, i STILL don't like the idea of a man with "Hussein" in his name being President of the United States; the thought of that just sounds scary to me.



I like reasons 1 and 2, but I don't plan to vote for him because:
1. His middle name is "Hussein", which by itself turns me off to him
2. After the 9/11 attacks, I just don't feel comfortable with a Muslim in the White House; that idea sounds to me a little bit (I SAID A LITTLE BIT) like the fox guarding the henhouse, depending on how radical or moderate a Muslim he is. I understand that more Muslims than not are moderate, peace-loving, live-and-let-live, and tolerant, but just enough of them are terrorists that I don't feel comfortable with ANY of them being elected President of the USA. Sorry if that offends anybody, but that's the way I feel.

However, I will take the Iraq war thing a step further than what you said: I think we NEVER SHOULD HAVE GONE THERE TO BEGIN WITH. We should be in Afghanistan, looking for Osama (as in Bin Laden; not to be confused with US Senator Obama).

You're a little stupid, aren't you?

A: You're accepting a baseless kneejerk reaction to a common name that just happens to also have been the last name of someone we just killed.

B: He's a christian. His father was muslim, and IIRC his mother was an athiest, but he himself is a christian - he's probably done more charity work than you'll ever even think of doing.

I actually hope you can't vote.

I'm actually afraid...

General would blow up.

Yeah. It would be cool. :D

Yeah. It would be cool. :D

Heh. Heh. Heh.

Yeah.


FIRE! FIRE!
heheheheh










I didn't sleep at all last night.

I'm actually afraid...

General would blow up.

The Jolt servers are straining at the mention of it.

The Jolt servers are straining at the mention of it.

Maybe the shock would be too great for anybody to handle it. Maybe it would go the other way. Cars crash. Planes fall from the sky. The little machines that wrap the little bits of silver paper around the little chocolates stop wrapping the little bits of silver paper around the little chocolates. Oprah shuts up.

It seems some folks have taken to calling him Borat Osama.

http://www.google.com/search?q="Borat+Osama"&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

Pure comic genius. :rolleyes:

It seems some folks have taken to calling him Borat Osama.

Pure comic genius. :rolleyes:

quick, somebody get them on that new fox news comedy show (btw, even ignoring its lack of funny, am i the only one that finds it odd that a thing that purports to be a news channel has intentionally created a fake news program?)

It seems some folks have taken to calling him Borat Osama.

http://www.google.com/search?q="Borat+Osama"&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

Pure comic genius. :rolleyes:

That could go well for him. I know I'd vote for Borat.

I'm not american, I'm Brazilian, but I know the United States enough to say that Obama is the best choice. The president's Bush administration is awfuly bad and, not only in Brazil, but all the world (sorry the expression) hates Bush. Here in Brazil, since Bush is the president, most people don't like the United States because of the image that Bush passed to the world. For example, when Bill Clinton was the president, the Brazilians liked the USA, but now... . Bush's politics is "warming up" the planet because of the polution and the Iraq's war. Even some republicans "don't like" them anymore. I made some researchs and when a republican (with some exceptions) was the president, something bad happened to the USA, and sometimes, the world. I ask for all the people who will vote that VOTE IN OBAMA. This will make the world and my country better.

quick, somebody get them on that new fox news comedy show (btw, even ignoring its lack of funny, am i the only one that finds it odd that a thing that purports to be a news channel has intentionally created a fake news program?)

Well, it fits in well with the rest of the lineup. ;)

I agree; even if he is not terrorist or pro-terrorist, i STILL don't like the idea of a man with "Hussein" in his name being President of the United States; the thought of that just sounds scary to me.



I like reasons 1 and 2, but I don't plan to vote for him because:
1. His middle name is "Hussein", which by itself turns me off to him
2. After the 9/11 attacks, I just don't feel comfortable with a Muslim in the White House; that idea sounds to me a little bit (I SAID A LITTLE BIT) like the fox guarding the henhouse, depending on how radical or moderate a Muslim he is. I understand that more Muslims than not are moderate, peace-loving, live-and-let-live, and tolerant, but just enough of them are terrorists that I don't feel comfortable with ANY of them being elected President of the USA. Sorry if that offends anybody, but that's the way I feel.

However, I will take the Iraq war thing a step further than what you said: I think we NEVER SHOULD HAVE GONE THERE TO BEGIN WITH. We should be in Afghanistan, looking for Osama (as in Bin Laden; not to be confused with US Senator Obama).
*Sigh*

I miss MeansToAnEnd.:(

This thread contains some of the most idiotic statements I've ever seen. Refusing to vote for someone because you don't like their name? Someone whose "reasonsing" is that fundamentally stupid should not have the right to vote.

It's the same demographics that voted for Il Douche because "he's a good Christian man" and makes Jeff Foxworthy a wealthy, wealthy man.

A citizen's responsability is to be informed and think before casting their vote. If you're too lazy to be informed and too lazy or too stupid to use your brain, you shouldn't be voting.

Welcome to the Bushevik Revolution, where Free Thought is the Enemy.

Anyway, from what I know of Obama so far, I would probably vote for him if I were American. He has ideals I can agree with, he seems honest and he makes sense.

Which of course means both Hellary and the Bushevik Party will both try to drag him down as a Dirty Muslim Manchurian Candidate for Osama Bin Ladin:

This Modern World: The Right Wing Noise Machine (http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/02/05/tomo/index1.html)

Well, it fits in well with the rest of the lineup. ;)

precisely - it's like they were setting it up just so that people like you and me could use that exact line. i suspect it may be part of the authoritarianism movement's general inclination to see how fucking ludicrous they can go and not be seriously called on it.

Iraq; Firstly, thats blind populism. If it was expedient for Obama to advocate continued occupation, he would, whilst any other Presidential candidate will extol the same principles.
He was solidly against the invasion even back when the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans were voting for it.[/quote]

Doesn't it bother you that his wiki page reads like a college application?

Part of the production.
Did you miss the part where he returned to community and charitable work *after* leaving Harvard, and years before he entered politics?

I'd support him if he weren't so goddamned shiney.
An excellent reason. :rolleyes:

In any case, populist is essentially demagoguic; appealing to the majority in any affair or issue, and I see Obama as little more than that.
You need to get your definitions straight.

populism: socially conservative and economically liberal

demagoguery: A leader who uses a number of underhanded political techniques in order to gain power, including: warmongering, fear, censorship, propaganda, nationalism, xenophobia, hateful rhetoric, false logic, and blatant lies. Uses the blind, patriotic support of the people to institute a corrupt and oppressive government.

Neither of those describes Obama.

Besides, isn't "appealing to the majority" the whole idea behind democracy?

I simply feel that Obama is nothing. He hopes to defeat Hilary through bringing in ethnic votes, and then drum on about Iraq until he sits in the Oval Office.

I daresay he has, being a young, decent looking bloke, however, I defy the will of any man to contend that a key element of an Obama victory would be ethnic votes.
Ah. The truth comes out. Again (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12227818&postcount=3).

Well, you should take comfort in the fact that Obama is not (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/us/politics/02obama.html?ex=1328072400&en=38b60b5769f22eb6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) some scary foreigner who is trying to manipulating those dirty ethnics to bring down America.

Not successfully, anyway.

I suggest you take a long, hard look at how you view other races.

I really can't believe how overboard they've gone with the mudslinging, it's just ridiculous. It actually makes me feel better about Obama, because if all they've got on him are things that are obviously not true and borderline racist (Being accused of being Muslim has been a long trend with attacks on the black community) then there really can't be anything of substance wrong with him. And they're obviously really afraid of him, as their pulling out this kind of artillery so soon, trying to eliminate him before he has a chance to gain momentum.

I would feel proud to call Barack Obama my President.

Troll. Troll!

Honestly, I seriously doubt that anyone could be that stupid.

Or at least I hope so.

:rolleyes:

My middle name is Elizabeth (as much as I hate to admit that). If I were to run for president and you disagreed with my policies, would you vote for me because my middle name is also the name of Queen Elizabeth I?

The name "Hussein" isn't exclusive to Saddam Hussein. Hussein is a common Arabic name, and one's name does not mean that one is a terrorist or pro-terrorist, or was named after Saddam Hussein.

The name "Hussein" isn't exclusive to Saddam Hussein. Hussein is a common Arabic name, and one's name does not mean that one is a terrorist or pro-terrorist, or was named after Saddam Hussein.

But it's very effective for the flock of Bushevik sheep, who also have "Muslim = 3b1l 73rr0r1z7" indoctrinated into their shallow minds. Why else would Homophobia prove such an effective campaign issue in 2004 and "Reality Shows" be such a constant hit?

I'm not american, I'm Brazilian, but I know the United States enough to say that Obama is the best choice. The president's Bush administration is awfuly bad and, not only in Brazil, but all the world (sorry the expression) hates Bush. Here in Brazil, since Bush is the president, most people don't like the United States because of the image that Bush passed to the world. For example, when Bill Clinton was the president, the Brazilians liked the USA, but now... . Bush's politics is "warming up" the planet because of the polution and the Iraq's war. Even some republicans "don't like" them anymore. I made some researchs and when a republican (with some exceptions) was the president, something bad happened to the USA, and sometimes, the world. I ask for all the people who will vote that VOTE IN OBAMA. This will make the world and my country better.

Obama's one of my favorites too. I normally don't like Democrats, but if one has to be in the White House, let him be Obama. He'll be the first black President, he'll get us out of Iraq, he'll put my country back on track. :)

:rolleyes:

My middle name is Elizabeth (as much as I hate to admit that). If I were to run for president and you disagreed with my policies, would you vote for me because my middle name is also the name of Queen Elizabeth I?

The name "Hussein" isn't exclusive to Saddam Hussein. Hussein is a common Arabic name, and one's name does not mean that one is a terrorist or pro-terrorist, or was named after Saddam Hussein.
To be clear, I wasn't calling KSP a troll -- I was talking about this guy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335425&postcount=8), who KSP was reacting to. I think this middle-name-o-phobia is stupid just as much as you do.

But it's very effective for the flock of Bushevik sheep, who also have "Muslim = 3b1l 73rr0r1z7" indoctrinated into their shallow minds. Why else would Homophobia prove such an effective campaign issue in 2004 and "Reality Shows" be such a constant hit?

Yes, but attacking someone just because of his middle name is flat out retarded. Nobody ever pays attention to the President's middle name anyway, though the Republicans might try to have a lugh about it. To America he'll just be President Barack H. Obama, like George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Franklin D. Roosevelt, etc. Just goes to show, as long as you have a middle initial, your middle name could be Pilot Inspektor or Tallullah or Apple or some other horrendous celebrity name.

To be clear, I wasn't calling KSP a troll -- I was talking about this guy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335425&postcount=8), who KSP was reacting to. I think this middle-name-o-phobia is stupid just as much as you do.

Ah. My apologies. :( :fluffle::fluffle:

Yes, but attacking someone just because of his middle name is flat out retarded. Nobody ever pays attention to the President's middle name anyway, though the Republicans might try to have a lugh about it.

Islamaphobia is still pervasive in the U.S. to where harping on Obama's middle name will stick in the sheeple's minds.

And I like his stances on gun control. I hate getting shot.

Yes, because we all know that criminals actually care about gun control laws, and that said laws actually stop them from acquiring guns. [/sarcasm]

"Gun control" doesn't prevent illicit types from getting guns anymore than "drug control" prevents illicit types from getting drugs. Criminals will always be able to gets guns, regardless of how easy or hard the law makes it for them to do so. The only ones who really lose are the law-abiding citizens.

Islamaphobia is still pervasive in the U.S. to where harping on Obama's middle name will stick in the sheeple's minds.

Yes, well, the "sheeple" wouldn't vote anyway, just the fundie sheeple.

Besides, nobody in the USA cares about the President's middle name. We could have a president named "Bob Pilot Inspektor Lucifer Cthulu Xenu Brazil Argentina RainbowDream Apple Talullah Johnson" and nobody would give a damn. Okay, in that case they might, but pick any one of those names and just use it, it'll just prove that We the Sheeple wouldn't give a flying gopher about the President's middle name.

Yes, but attacking someone just because of his middle name is flat out retarded. Nobody ever pays attention to the President's middle name anyway, though the Republicans might try to have a lugh about it. To America he'll just be President Barack H. Obama, like George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Franklin D. Roosevelt, etc. Just goes to show, as long as you have a middle initial, your middle name could be Pilot Inspektor or Tallullah or Apple or some other horrendous celebrity name.

Islamaphobia is still pervasive in the U.S. to where harping on Obama's middle name will stick in the sheeple's minds.

Heinlein said it best: Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Yes, because we all know that criminals actually care about gun control laws, and that said laws actually stop them from acquiring guns. [/sarcasm]

"Gun control" doesn't prevent illicit types from getting guns anymore than "drug control" prevents illicit types from getting drugs. Criminals will always be able to gets guns, regardless of how easy or hard the law makes it for them to do so. The only ones who really lose are the law-abiding citizens.

If you want to fight gun violence, target and eliminate the root causes of crime: poverty, etc.

Heinlein said it best: Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

True.

To paraphrase Heinlein, "Never underestimate the power of We the Sheeple's stupidity."

If you want to fight gun violence, target and eliminate the root causes of crime: poverty, etc.

Yes. I think Obama is a smart guy- if he improves education, he'll definitely see a drop in gun violence. :)

Yes, because we all know that criminals actually care about gun control laws, and that said laws actually stop them from acquiring guns. [/sarcasm]

"Gun control" doesn't prevent illicit types from getting guns anymore than "drug control" prevents illicit types from getting drugs. Criminals will always be able to gets guns, regardless of how easy or hard the law makes it for them to do so. The only ones who really lose are the law-abiding citizens.

I've heard it before. What about crimes of passion and scenes of domestic violence when a gun is present in a home? I'm not saying you don't have a right to getting an extension onto your manhood, I'm just all for any laws that put restrictions on that right. To you, I am an asshole and I've come to terms with that. After much inner pondering, I've found peace with myself.

I've heard it before. What about crimes of passion and scenes of domestic violence when a gun is present in a home? I'm not saying you don't have a right to getting an extension onto your manhood, I'm just all for any laws that put restrictions on that right. To you, I am an asshole and I've come to terms with that. After much inner pondering, I've found peace with myself.

You're not an asshole. You have a different opinion, but I don't see how that makes you an asshole. You're actually one of my favorite NSGers. :)

And the crimes of passion thing is definitely a concern, but you could just as easily kill someone with something else other than a gun.

You're not an asshole. You have a different opinion, but I don't see how that makes you an asshole. You're actually one of my favorite NSGers. :)

And the crimes of passion thing is definitely a concern, but you could just as easily kill someone with something else other than a gun.

Like a guitar string. *nod*

Ah. My apologies. :( :fluffle::fluffle:
Come on, you know me better than that! :D

You're not an asshole. You have a different opinion, but I don't see how that makes you an asshole. You're actually one of my favorite NSGers. :)

And the crimes of passion thing is definitely a concern, but you could just as easily kill someone with something else other than a gun.

Oh... wow. I'm sorry. I'm just confused. Usually when I talk to someone pro gun and mention I'm anti-gun it turns into an all out war...


Uhhhhh....

Not sure how to proceed from here? Agree to disagree?


Wow.

Also, it could be argued that a single bullet will do more damage than a single slash of a knife or other handy weapon about town. Of course, not in all cases but as a sort of general rule.

Come on, you know me better than that! :D

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
There. Fluffle spam. Take it or leave it.

:rolleyes:

My middle name is Elizabeth (as much as I hate to admit that).
That explains your email address.
He'll be the first black President, he'll get us out of Iraq, he'll put my country back on track. :)

Isn't the president going to be a first no matter who wins? I don't remember who's who of the last two(I was just glancing at the paper last week), but it's the first female pres, first black pres, first Mormon pres or first 'Nam vet pres.

Oh... wow. I'm sorry. I'm just confused. Usually when I talk to someone pro gun and mention I'm anti-gun it turns into an all out war...

No worries.


Uhhhhh....

Not sure how to proceed from here? Agree to disagree?

Works for me. ;)

I've heard it before. What about crimes of passion and scenes of domestic violence when a gun is present in a home? I'm not saying you don't have a right to getting an extension onto your manhood, I'm just all for any laws that put restrictions on that right. To you, I am an asshole and I've come to terms with that. After much inner pondering, I've found peace with myself.

I'm not exactly pro-gun, but I'm not anti-gun either. The reality is, people have guns, and criminals are going to have them, plus no solution is 100%, so yes, there will be a lot of domestic violence cases, and yes, I've used one hell of a lot of commas. I hate guns, but I'm all for the right to bear arms for protection.

You're not an asshole. You have a different opinion, but I don't see how that makes you an asshole. You're actually one of my favorite NSGers. :)

And the crimes of passion thing is definitely a concern, but you could just as easily kill someone with something else other than a gun.

Not just as easily. It's pretty fucking easy to actually kill someone with a gun. It takes a bit more effort to bash them in the head with a lamp, for instance.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
There. Fluffle spam. Take it or leave it.
*drowns in fluffle deluge*

*drowns in fluffle deluge*

Noes! :(

How many have to die before people use the fluffle responsibly?!

How many have to die before people use the fluffle responsibly?!
That's why I'm introducing the Fluffles Under Control Kindly Act of 2007. :D

That's why I'm introducing the Fluffles Under Control Kindly Act of 2007. :D
F... U... C...

:eek:

My virgin eyes!

The FUCK act of 2007?

FUCK will remove the deadly scourge of fluffling from our forums once and for all!!!!

That's why I'm introducing the Fluffles Under Control Kindly Act of 2007. :D

The FUCK act of 2007?

I'm not exactly pro-gun, but I'm not anti-gun either. The reality is, people have guns, and criminals are going to have them, plus no solution is 100%, so yes, there will be a lot of domestic violence cases, and yes, I've used one hell of a lot of commas. I hate guns, but I'm all for the right to bear arms for protection.

I'm not saying outlaw guns, I'm just saying it shouldn't necessarily be easy to own one. Basically it should be harder to get a handgun than it is to get a shotgun and harder to get a shotgun than to get a bb gun and harder to get a bb gun than to get a squirt gun and harder to get a squirt gun than to get... umm... water.

The FUCK act of 2007?

:eek: :D :p

Silly noobs, that act would only spawn MORE fluffle attacks! :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

:eek: :D :p

Silly noobs, that act would only spawn MORE fluffle attacks! :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:
If fluffles are outlawed, only outlaws will have fluffles.

How many have to die before people use the fluffle responsibly?!

Hey, hey, STFU. I always fluffle responsibly, and it seems as though Rhaomi couldn't handle it. Is that now my fault? :mad:

If fluffles are outlawed, only outlaws will have fluffles.

Fluffles don't kill people, death kills people.

If fluffles are outlawed, only outlaws will have fluffles.

And NSG will be beseiged by outlaws fluffle-spamming each thread we see.

And NSG will be beseiged by outlaws fluffle-spamming each thread we see.

Fluffle control isn't about fluffles. It is about CONTROL.

And NSG will be beseiged by outlaws fluffle-spamming each thread we see.

So, nothing would change?

Obama is exactly what we need right now in a president. I've been waiting for an idealist for quite a while. Obama is competent, idealistic, charismatic, and determined. He also gives us a chance to make history, which is a nice plus. Unlike any other politician I've ever seen, I actually like to hear him speak. He gives me a sense of hope that I feel is desperately needed.

Hitler, as I understand it, was exactly the same way to the Germans. Following this line of logic, there's absolutely nothing wrong with voting a Hitler into office. His charisma means absolutely nothing if he can't/won't do anything. Come on now.

Like some sane people have said, we need to base our opinions on how he votes and his stances on the issues, not on whether or not he can speak well. Remember, he's running for the most powerful position in the world. He'll have to have much, much more than charisma to be an effective president.

So, nothing would change?

No.

Actually, in a way, yes, but that would mean that all of my posts would include 10 fluffles, no more (:() and no less.

Good speech? The man is crude, transparent, and lacking in eloquence.

In any case, populist is essentially demagoguic; appealing to the majority in any affair or issue, and I see Obama as little more than that.

Were I American, I'd hope Giuliani was a candidate regardless, but I simply feel that Obama is nothing. He hopes to defeat Hilary through bringing in ethnic votes, and then drum on about Iraq until he sits in the Oval Office.

Right... So... You don't understand political terminology, you've never listened to Obama speak, and you're using excuses to hide your racism and support an authoritarian who makes Bush look like a man deeply opposed to cronyism.

I'm glad you can't vote in America. :)

Hitler, as I understand it, was exactly the same way to the Germans. Following this line of logic, there's absolutely nothing wrong with voting a Hitler into office. His charisma means absolutely nothing if he can't/won't do anything. Come on now.

Like some sane people have said, we need to base our opinions on how he votes and his stances on the issues, not on whether or not he can speak well. Remember, he's running for the most powerful position in the world. He'll have to have much, much more than charisma to be an effective president.

I can't believe you're comparing Obama to Hitler.

Hitler, as I understand it, was exactly the same way to the Germans. Following this line of logic, there's absolutely nothing wrong with voting a Hitler into office. His charisma means absolutely nothing if he can't/won't do anything. Come on now.

Like some sane people have said, we need to base our opinions on how he votes and his stances on the issues, not on whether or not he can speak well. Remember, he's running for the most powerful position in the world. He'll have to have much, much more than charisma to be an effective president.

You Godwinned Obama?



why?

:rolleyes:

My middle name is Elizabeth (as much as I hate to admit that). If I were to run for president and you disagreed with my policies, would you vote for me because my middle name is also the name of Queen Elizabeth I?

The name "Hussein" isn't exclusive to Saddam Hussein. Hussein is a common Arabic name, and one's name does not mean that one is a terrorist or pro-terrorist, or was named after Saddam Hussein.

Does you surname also begin with E...E^3! :fluffle:

That's why I'm introducing the Fluffles Under Control Kindly Act of 2007. :D

You know, people get paid big money to come up with shit like that...


I think we need an inexperienced, young individual because anyone with experience becomes a piece of crap. Gore-Obama/Obama-Gore: that interests me...

I think the media and people like those here are pushing his skin color more than he is. He is not even "black", despite my hatred of using such words as "black" and "white".

Finally, we all know Hilary shouldn't win the nomination, but the bizarre way that we elect presidents will get her nominated. Primaries are all on different days and some are really too early. The first few that come out will ruin the rest because people will think so-and-so is winning so may as well vote for them. Bush was not supposed to win either time, and I don't think he did. Hilary is loved by moron base-voters like my dad who will get her the nomination.

It's upsetting that I can vote for the next President, but not who gets the nomination. If Hilary is nominated, and the Republican is good, I will be forced to use my first presidential vote on a Republican. If the Republican isn't good, I'd vote Socialist...or Gott Forbid! Nader...since he'll be running if Hilary is nominated...although I can't see how that would work since the nomination is only 2.5 months before the election.

I'm not saying outlaw guns, I'm just saying it shouldn't necessarily be easy to own one. Basically it should be harder to get a handgun than it is to get a shotgun and harder to get a shotgun than to get a bb gun and harder to get a bb gun than to get a squirt gun and harder to get a squirt gun than to get... umm... water.

If we make it difficult to get guns then what would be the point? The entire point gun supporters love the laws so much is it is so easy to get a weapon. Just listen to them howl when we actually make them work a little to get another firearm...

*listens to the gun nuts howl*

:D

If we make it difficult to get guns then what would be the point? The entire point gun supporters love the laws so much is it is so easy to get a weapon. Just listen to them howl when we actually make them work a little to get another firearm...

*listens to the gun nuts howl*

:D

Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make.

Does you surname also begin with E...E^3! :fluffle:

Unfortunately, no. :( :fluffle:

Unfortunately, no. :( :fluffle:

Change it! :D

Change it! :D

I will when I get the chance.

My current initials are rather unflattering. :(

Like the link between Bin Laden and Hussein?

Nice move.

You Godwinned Obama?



why?
Because he's got nothing else. Because he's pathetic.

It's upsetting that I can vote for the next President, but not who gets the nomination. If Hilary is nominated, and the Republican is good, I will be forced to use my first presidential vote on a Republican. If the Republican isn't good, I'd vote Socialist...or Gott Forbid! Nader...since he'll be running if Hilary is nominated...although I can't see how that would work since the nomination is only 2.5 months before the election.
Go ahead and resign yourself to the fact, then, that you'll either be voting third party or Democrat, because there isn't a good Republican running.

I'm not american, I'm Brazilian, but I know the United States enough to say that Obama is the best choice. The president's Bush administration is awfuly bad and, not only in Brazil, but all the world (sorry the expression) hates Bush. Here in Brazil, since Bush is the president, most people don't like the United States because of the image that Bush passed to the world. For example, when Bill Clinton was the president, the Brazilians liked the USA, but now... . Bush's politics is "warming up" the planet because of the polution and the Iraq's war. Even some republicans "don't like" them anymore. I made some researchs and when a republican (with some exceptions) was the president, something bad happened to the USA, and sometimes, the world. I ask for all the people who will vote that VOTE IN OBAMA. This will make the world and my country better.

Ah, de onde vc é?

And, yes. But remember most conservatives don't care what the world thinks.

And, yes. But remember most conservatives don't care what the world thinks.

They only care about what their dictator god thinks.

Because he's got nothing else. Because he's pathetic.

That's the understatement of the year. ;)

They only care about what their dictator god thinks.

Pretty much.

And since one guy compared Obama (the black guy that wants to stop an unfair invasion) to Hitler (the Aryan racist that invaded several countries unfairly), I'm allowed to draw a few parallels...

Watch this!

Bush and Hitler...

Didn't care how the world thought.
Restricted freedoms in their countries for "security".
Invaded countries for no reason.
Claimed that God was with them.
Set up concentration camps.
Had a HUGE propaganda machine.

I will when I get the chance.

My current initials are rather unflattering. :(

EEP? lol EER? lolol...

Go ahead and resign yourself to the fact, then, that you'll either be voting third party or Democrat, because there isn't a good Republican running.

I can't perceive the tone of that. Are you saying that there won't be a good Republican?

I can't perceive the tone of that. Are you saying that there won't be a good Republican?

this is Nazz... to him, the only Good Republican is a dead and buried Republican. [/jk] :p

I can't perceive the tone of that. Are you saying that there won't be a good Republican?

since the party is made up of fascists, fundamentalists, and fat cats, it's not a huge leap. and it's not like we don't know who is running on that side or something.

Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make.

"Guns... must defend against the hordes of poor minorities who are after us... right to bear arms... guns don't kill people... damn liberals... trying to take our guns... the government is after us... guns..."

Interesting, though it really isn't my kind of music. :p

1. He is young and will bring fresh blood into an old office.

He is also quite inexperienced in politics. And while perhaps that's a good thing as far as politicians go, what is his experience with domestic and foreign issues? What makes him able to lead our country?

2. He has stated his intention to cleanup Washington.

I can respect that. Washington does need "cleaned up." However, I wonder how many politicians have said this, or believed this, early on, only to fall to apathy and mild corruption as time goes on.

3. He has stated that we must withdraw from Iraq ASAP.

That's foolish. The mess we made needs to be fixed. Just because the current method is not working, does not mean no method would. Leaving "ASAP" is irresponsible.

4. Other reasons may apply, but will never be based on skin color.

The fact that you even thought to bring it up is a clear indication of how far our nation needs to come. Until no one mentions that Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy were black coaches in the Superbowl, until no one feels the need to celebrate "black history" as opposed to all history, until we are all just American and not "African American" or "Caucasian," and until no one brings up the fact that Obama is, in fact, black...equality will never be achieved.

since the party is made up of fascists, fundamentalists, and fat cats, it's not a huge leap. and it's not like we don't know who is running on that side or something.

Because obviously the (D) or the (R) following the candidate's name matters more than the candidate him or herself. Stances on issues and content of character be damned! :rolleyes:

Because obviously the (D) or the (R) following the candidate's name matters more than the candidate him or herself. Stances on issues and content of character be damned! :rolleyes:

Well, the Republican party IS the party of Bush and Nixon...

He is also quite inexperienced in politics. And while perhaps that's a good thing as far as politicians go, what is his experience with domestic and foreign issues? What makes him able to lead our country?

Foreign:

Sure, his degree is in Political Science with a focus in International Relations. Sure, he's on the Senate Foreign Affairs committee. Of course he has too little experience. Because, you know, being involved in the actual foreign affairs of the nation isn't as good experience as being a Governor, eh?

Domestic:

In 1985, he moved to Chicago to direct a non-profit project assisting local churches to organize job training programs for residents of poor neighborhoods.

Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988. In February 1990, he gained national recognition for becoming the first African American to be elected president of the Harvard Law Review. He obtained his J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991. On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive, then worked for the civil rights law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

You were saying?

Because obviously the (D) or the (R) following the candidate's name matters more than the candidate him or herself. Stances on issues and content of character be damned! :rolleyes:

the fact that someone would willingly put an (R) next to their name at this point is pretty damning of the content of their character all by itself

Hehe.. if I'd known nothing about Obama before reading this thread to this point, I would still know nothing about him, aside from his being a smoker, and Black, and perhaps, if I'd read closely, his beoing from Illinois.

In other words, this forum seems to be returning to its former greatness. :p

It's going to be an entertaining election cycle. :)

and perhaps, if I'd read closely, his being from Illinois.

and that should be reason enough

Hehe.. if I'd known nothing about Obama before reading this thread to this point, I would still know nothing about him, aside from his being a smoker, and Black, and perhaps, if I'd read closely, his beoing from Illinois.

In other words, this forum seems to be returning to its former greatness. :p

It's going to be an entertaining election cycle. :)
With everyone slandering Obama instead of having nothing to oppose him with. If he gets a blowjob from an intern, we might as well just give him the job now.

this is Nazz... to him, the only Good Republican is a dead and buried Republican. [/jk] :p

since the party is made up of fascists, fundamentalists, and fat cats, it's not a huge leap. and it's not like we don't know who is running on that side or something.

Ah.

He is also quite inexperienced in politics. And while perhaps that's a good thing as far as politicians go, what is his experience with domestic and foreign issues? What makes him able to lead our country?



I can respect that. Washington does need "cleaned up." However, I wonder how many politicians have said this, or believed this, early on, only to fall to apathy and mild corruption as time goes on.



That's foolish. The mess we made needs to be fixed. Just because the current method is not working, does not mean no method would. Leaving "ASAP" is irresponsible.



The fact that you even thought to bring it up is a clear indication of how far our nation needs to come. Until no one mentions that Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy were black coaches in the Superbowl, until no one feels the need to celebrate "black history" as opposed to all history, until we are all just American and not "African American" or "Caucasian," and until no one brings up the fact that Obama is, in fact, black...equality will never be achieved.

Iraq cannot be fixed by us and it is not our job to pour more money into a black hole. They don't even want our help and never did. Iraq must be left to decay into overall anarchy(warlord-govt) or to split into the pieces it should always have been in...

I brought tha up so no one would think of that and to show that his skin color does not matter to me other than that he would probably be the darkest-skinned president to date. I agree strongly with what you have said and no longer define anyone by their skin color, except to describe them, and even that is rare. Or in a rebuttal-type thing. My mom has had a few arguments with me about this...any skin-color based "facts" are created by the shadows of past racism...which is a word I don't like using because it implies that there is more than one race amongst humans, which there most certainly is not. :)

the fact that someone would willing put an (R) next to their name at this point is pretty damning of the content of their character all by itself

For some reason this seems to go right over peoples heads, as if social "conservatism" and an eagerness to use our military on anyone who blinks at us aren't examples of their character.

"If I speak honestly, and if I do the best possible job I can then I think things will work out just fine." -Sen. Obama in an interview with Jon Stewart.

:fluffle:

<3

Hehe.. if I'd known nothing about Obama before reading this thread to this point, I would still know nothing about him, aside from his being a smoker, and Black, and perhaps, if I'd read closely, his beoing from Illinois.
Then you evidently can't read:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335348&postcount=2
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335415&postcount=6
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335439&postcount=12
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335532&postcount=25
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335544&postcount=27
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335677&postcount=33
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335705&postcount=37
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335714&postcount=38
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335799&postcount=45
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335819&postcount=47
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335917&postcount=50
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12336123&postcount=67
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12336317&postcount=86
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12336351&postcount=93
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12336497&postcount=100
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12336814&postcount=113
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12337295&postcount=127
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12337342&postcount=130
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12337593&postcount=143
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12337770&postcount=144
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12337792&postcount=147
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12338281&postcount=205
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12338308&postcount=208

Absolutely. While he isn't nearly as liberal as I am, he seems like the best candidate.

The whole "He is a Muslim! Oh shit! We will all die!" thing (which he isn't) is annoying, not mention it shouldn't play any role in your decision.

On an slightly related note, down with racism and bigotry.

Slightly related?

90% of this thread has revolved around his ethnic background in one way or another. Things really haven't changed much since the 60's eh?

Absolutely. While he isn't nearly as liberal as I am, he seems like the best candidate.

The whole "He is a Muslim! Oh shit! We will all die!" thing (which he isn't) is annoying, not mention it shouldn't play any role in your decision.

On an slightly related note, down with racism and bigotry.

Pretty much.

And since one guy compared Obama (the black guy that wants to stop an unfair invasion) to Hitler (the Aryan racist that invaded several countries unfairly), I'm allowed to draw a few parallels...

Watch this!

Bush and Hitler...

Didn't care how the world thought.
Restricted freedoms in their countries for "security".
Invaded countries for no reason.
Claimed that God was with them.
Set up concentration camps.
Had a HUGE propaganda machine.

All I said was that the vast majority of good things that have been said about Obama could also be applied to Hitler.

As to your list, Bush is hardly the first American president to do that. I'm sure American colonists weren't too concerned about privacy whilst British troops marched across the land. Lincoln suspended, among other things, habeus corpus during the Civil War. FDR, too, "restricted freedoms in (his) countr(y) for 'security,' invaded countries (though, granted, there were reasons), set up concentration camps, and had a HUGE propaganda machine (Rosie the Riveter, anyone?)" Oh, and he probably at least thought that God was with him.

All I said was that the only good things you're saying about Obama could also be applied to Hitler.
The definition of a Godwin. Just because something that applies to one person can also apply to Hitler does not make that person or thing bad, or counteract any goodness it may have. If both Hitler and Obama gave to charity, would that mean that giving to charity is worthless?

Absolutely. While he isn't nearly as liberal as I am, he seems like the best candidate.

The whole "He is a Muslim! Oh shit! We will all die!" thing (which he isn't) is annoying, not mention it shouldn't play any role in your decision.

On an slightly related note, down with racism and bigotry.

He has repeatedly mentioned he is an observant Christian so people shouting about Muslims really need to shut the hell up. It is only the fundie right trying to slander him (not that there's anything wrong with being Muslim, mind) as they can see he is going to be a threat to them come '08. I would certainly vote for him, especially if my only other choice is Hillary Clinton. The man also is a rare politician who looks ahead instead of only attacking past policies. It is too bad that he doesn't have more experience so he'll have more of a chance...

Worstcase Scenario:

(R)Sen. Brownback from Kansas wins in which case I run away to Canada.

Slightly related?

90% of this thread has revolved around his ethnic background in one way or another. Things really haven't changed much since the 60's eh?
Related to my post that is. Also, you are right in saying not much has changed since the 60's, only now people have a place where they have anonymity to be racist and intolerant.

Then you evidently can't read:

Bah, you knew what I meant. Substantial information.. like why someone should vote for him/against him. The resume is nice, but his degrees don't cut it. Hell, I have a degree in something, believe it or not.

Anyhow, sure, I was generalizing.. there were a few actual opinions of his scattered around. There was *some* substance, kinda like the pork in pork rinds.. the other 99% is the stuff that keeps you reading. :p

EEP? lol EER? lolol...



I can't perceive the tone of that. Are you saying that there won't be a good Republican?

Based on who's running, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's conceivable that there could be a Republican I would support for President, but he/she would never make it through the primaries.

"If I speak honestly, and if I do the best possible job I can then I think things will work out just fine." -Sen. Obama in an interview with Jon Stewart.

:fluffle:

<3

No doubt I'll have racist thrown down my neck. Again. But anybody who falls for this is moronic.

You'd entrust the future of the USA to a man who extols such transparent wank?

Because obviously the (D) or the (R) following the candidate's name matters more than the candidate him or herself. Stances on issues and content of character be damned! :rolleyes:

In this case it does, because you're not just electing a President, you're electing an entire executive branch, with all the baggage that entails. If you vote for a republican, you're voting for the Federalist Society to pick federal judges and SCOTUS nominees. You're voting for industry lobbyists to be the heads of the regulatory agencies that are supposed to oversee those industries. You're voting for corporations writing their own legislation. You're voting for a program, not a person, whether you choose to believe that or not, so I vote for the program that suits my desires.

No doubt I'll have racist thrown down my neck. Again. But anybody who falls for this is moronic.

You'd entrust the future of the USA to a man who extols such transparent wank?

No--the reason we call you a racist is because you openly admitted to being one in the past. That makes us question your honesty on this subject.

The fact that you even thought to bring it up is a clear indication of how far our nation needs to come. Until no one mentions that Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy were black coaches in the Superbowl, until no one feels the need to celebrate "black history" as opposed to all history, until we are all just American and not "African American" or "Caucasian," and until no one brings up the fact that Obama is, in fact, black...equality will never be achieved.

You make it sound like equality would be achieved if we just stopped talking about it. Racism and history would suddenly vanish.

Let me guess, you're like Steven Colbert and can't see color. :rolleyes:

No--the reason we call you a racist is because you openly admitted to being one in the past. That makes us question your honesty on this subject.

No. It makes you disregard a fair point.

I wouldn't vote for the bloke on the principle that I wouldn't vote for a democrat, and do you genuinely believe all that "open, young blooded" shite he spews out?

You'd entrust the future of the USA to a man who extols such transparent wank?

Yes, yes I would.

Who would you trust, given you had to choose?

Yes, yes I would.

Who would you trust, given you had to choose?

Out of?

Out of Hilary and Obama; Hilary if only because Barack lacks any real political experiance, and a vote for Hillary would allow Bill, and all his experience, into office.


Beyond that, I'm not really well acquainted enough with American politics to guage.

No. It makes you disregard a fair point.

I wouldn't vote for the bloke on the principle that I wouldn't vote for a democrat, and do you genuinely believe all that "open, young blooded" shite he spews out?

Your background and admission of racism makes it impossible for you to make a fair point on this issue. Your racism tinges everything you have to say about a person of color, whether you want to admit it or not.

Based on who's running, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's conceivable that there could be a Republican I would support for President, but he/she would never make it through the primaries.

Come on now, you know you'd vote for Newt.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1995/1101950109_400.jpg

The guy's charming! :)

Beyond that, I'm not really well acquainted enough with American politics to guage.

Yet you can so easily call one a wank for one statement.

No. It makes you disregard a fair point.

I wouldn't vote for the bloke on the principle that I wouldn't vote for a democrat, and do you genuinely believe all that "open, young blooded" shite he spews out?

Any argument you make revolving around "I wouldn't vote for him" is moot regardless of "reasoning" because of your statement you would leave the country if a black person was elected, so you can just stop now.

Your background and admission of racism makes it impossible for you to make a fair point on this issue. Your racism tinges everything you have to say about a person of color, whether you want to admit it or not.

Not really. In any case, you don't know me sufficiently well to guage. I concede I can come across as racist when in a confrontational mood, and I do tend to post in anger at times (please concede that you people can be tediously left wing at times), but in my herat of hearts I don't believe I'm racist.

In any case, answer the question. Do you actually buy into Obama's conscious portrayal of his youth.

Let me guess, you're like Steven Colbert and can't see color. :rolleyes:

Let me guess, you haven't caught on to Stephen Colbert's jokes yet. :rolleyes:

If you actually take him seriously, then I suggest REALLY watching the show, not just peeking over every few seconds.

Yet you can so easily call one a wank for one statement.

From what I infer from Obama on here, and in British News sources, he makes excessive play upon his youth, and his intention to clean up politics, and frankly I despair if people buy into it. In 1997, Blair campaigned with "transparency" a central tenet of his "project", and is now likely to face criminal charges for selling peerships in return for loans to the Labour Party.

Yet you can so easily call one a wank for one statement.

If he is going after Obama like he is among the worst of the candidates then perhaps he knows less then he thinks he does.

I concede I can come across as racist when in a confrontational mood, and I do tend to post in anger at times (please concede that you people can be tediously left wing at times), but in my herat of hearts I don't believe I'm racist.

Racism is a character flaw.

Left (or Right) wing is an ideology.

You don't "come across" as racist any more than I "come across" as Left wing or JuNii "comes across" as Right wing. We ARE. However, it IS a problem in YOUR case.

In this case it does, because you're not just electing a President, you're electing an entire executive branch, with all the baggage that entails. If you vote for a republican, you're voting for the Federalist Society to pick federal judges and SCOTUS nominees. You're voting for industry lobbyists to be the heads of the regulatory agencies that are supposed to oversee those industries. You're voting for corporations writing their own legislation. You're voting for a program, not a person, whether you choose to believe that or not, so I vote for the program that suits my desires.

this is one of the things that bothers me about our not-intended-for-political-parties-but-necessitates-their-existence system of representation. the system pretends as though the individual candidates matter most, when clearly it is party that drives everything important (and given the nature of the institutions, it couldn't be otherwise). even in the house, no matter how the individual pol might vote on any particular slate of issues, as long as they are members of whatever party, they'll be electing a leadership that will be in charge of what gets voted on and what doesn't. might as well just drop the act and go party list votes, if we insist on doing it this way.

Let me guess, you haven't caught on to Stephen Colbert's jokes yet. :rolleyes:

If you actually take him seriously, then I suggest REALLY watching the show, not just peeking over every few seconds.

Give me a break. Of course I know Colbert is kidding, but he is making fun of people like Steel Butterfly. That was my point.

Give me a break. Of course I know Colbert is kidding, but he is making fun of people like Steel Butterfly. That was my point.

Oh. Sorry. Didn't catch that. :( :fluffle:

No doubt I'll have racist thrown down my neck. Again.
Deservedly so. You've given us no reason to believe otherwise, other than "I went to a rich school" and "all my friends agree with me".

I told you that your racist statements would forever sully your image on this forum, and it looks like I was correct. You can stop trying to post in racially-tinged topics, or leave the forums altogether -- but no matter how you portray yourself from now on, your past comments will not be forgotten.

Racism is not something you can bumble into, apologize for, and that be that. It's a state of mind, and you've given no indication of finding a new one since I first encountered you here.

this is one of the things that bothers me about our not-intended-for-political-parties-but-necessitates-their-existence system of representation. the system pretends as though the individual candidates matter most, when clearly it is party that drives everything important (and given the nature of the institutions, it couldn't be otherwise). even in the house, no matter how the individual pol might vote on any particular slate of issues, as long as they are members of whatever party, they'll be electing a leadership that will be in charge of what gets voted on and what doesn't. might as well just drop the act and go party list votes, if we insist on doing it this way.

I made exactly that argument in the run-up to the 2006 elections--your vote for your local House candidate wasn't just for the candidate, but was also for Speaker--did you want Pelosi or Hastert? And there was a clear difference. It was less the case in the Senate, because the Majority Leader has less pull than the Speaker, and because in this case the reigning Majority Leader was retiring--harder to demonize that way--and because doing anything in the Senate requires 60 votes and neither party was going to be there anyway.

There are times when I think you can responsibly vote person over party, but generally that's more in local races than federal ones.

Give me a break. Of course I know Colbert is kidding, but he is making fun of people like Steel Butterfly. That was my point.

good he can make fun of SB all he wants

Deservedly so. You've given us no reason to believe otherwise, other than "I went to a rich school" and "all my friends agree with me".

I told you that your racist statements would forever sully your image on this forum, and it looks like I was correct. You can stop trying to post in racially-tinged topics, or leave the forums altogether -- but no matter how you portray yourself from now on, your past comments will not be forgotten.

Racism is not something you can bumble into, apologize for, and that be that. It's a state of mind, and you've given no indication of finding a new one since I first encountered you here.

Great. I might point out that I raise a completely fair point, but why fucking bother?

Racism is a character flaw.

Left (or Right) wing is an ideology.

You don't "come across" as racist any more than I "come across" as Left wing or JuNii "comes across" as Right wing. We ARE. However, it IS a problem in YOUR case.

Once more, read the whole post, not the parts that suit. I'm not racist. I may not like gangsta culture, or multiculturalism, but many don't, and aren't considered racist.

Great. I might point out that I raise a completely fair point, but why fucking bother?
Because, even when you do make a valid point, people will look at it with extreme skepticism, especially if it deals with something racial in nature.

You didn't have a valid point, anyway. Your claims against him are just as empty as how you attempt to paint him. Regardless of your comments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12336369&postcount=94), he is still a charismatic and inspiring speaker, much more so than any of the candidates currently in the running, and is in no way a "crude, tub-thumping" demagogue. Also, he's made no attempt to capitalize on his own childhood. His famously frank autobiography, Dreams From My Father, was written years before he entered even state politics. There is no calculating political motive at work there.

You fail -- please do not try again.