LOL, it really was.
What is not commonly known about Obama...
- Thread starter PorterM
- Start date
LOL, it really was.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
So how's your sweet lovin been Ladyt?
Actually, if you look at the history of who votes for the Democrat nominee, one fact remains.
If you are a sex offender, serial offender, illegal alien, or on welfare, you are much more likely to vote for the Liberal/Democrat candidate in an election.
It shows some of the outspoken people that are openly supporting Obama and that was not commonly known about Obama. These people quoted know who they are supporting. They do not throw their support behind a candidate when they do not know what the candidate is going to do for them. It is obvious that Obama shares the same values and agendas as people like Jane Fonda and CodePINK.
That's pathetic & retarded. Over 50 million people will support Obama, and over 50 million people will support McCain. To suggest that each has to explain for all of their supporters is ludicrous; there will be a huge spectrum of ideology & expression under each.
If I'm in Code Pink, and it could happen, I have a choice between John McCain, who has promised to stay the course on Iraq, and Barak Obama, who has promised to withdraw our troops. To me, that choice is a no brainer, if withdrawing our troops & ending the war is my raison d'etre.
You're a hack.
Socrtease
Verified User
So what this thread is really all about is that any time ANYONE donates money to your campaign you adopt as your own every statement ever made by them? Or that if that person supports you, you and she agree on EVERYTHING? I mean look at it pragmatically. If you are code pink are you more likely to get some of what you want from McCain or Obama? In 2000 Bush endorsed the Assault Weapons Ban, do you think that the NRA dropped their support of him? No, you go with whoever looks most like you on the issues. That doesn't mean you are they are sympatico
Who did that. Did I do that? Who else on this thread who is 'defending' Obama from these clearly legit charges that he shares every view of everyone who supports him.
Socrtease
Verified User
If it was JUST money that Paul got that would be one thing, but it wasn't. It was the fact that racist diatribes appeared in a publication that bore his name and he never said a thing about it, until it made the national news.
Epicurus
Reasonable
I'm pointing out that you seem to have all magically realized that receiving money from someone /= sharing all their beliefs.
Which is interesting, considering how breathtakingly ignorant almost all liberals on this site appeared to be when it was Paul and not Obama under attack.
Which is interesting, considering how breathtakingly ignorant almost all liberals on this site appeared to be when it was Paul and not Obama under attack.
Socrtease
Verified User
If there was the Obama Survival Letter out and it made all sorts of racist statements and he received money from racists, I would not support him either. If he a letter out that bore his name and it advocated communism and he received money from communists I would not vote for him. Shit in the end even Paul said he didn't pay attention to what was written in his name. That being the case, I want someone that runs for president that pays attention to what is going on not only in his name but ours.
Anytime you use the phrase "you all," you take a credibility nosedive.
Frankly, I have hardly commented on Paul, or paid attention to him, because he never had a prayer. I liked that he opposed the war; that's all I knew about him.
Obama has been subject to more "guilt by association" than any viable candidate in recent memory. It's reached a level of absurdity that is exemplified by the topic of this thread, which it's interesting to see you don't have a comment on.
Epicurus
Reasonable
He is not viable because idiots like yourself have all reached the conclusion that he was not viable. This is about as reliable as 2004, when idiots like yourself decided that Kerry WAS viable.
I never trust the judgement of the establishment, and I vote what I believe.
Apparently that is a foreign concept to most Democrats.
Last edited:
How so? If a candidate doesn't have a snowball's chance in succeeding, he is no more viable than someone I might like on my Town Council. Presidents determine the course of the future, at least with regard to many issues that affect our lives; candidates like Nader, Paul, Gravel et al. do not.
Why should I pay any attention to Ron Paul whatsoever? You may judge your continued support of a non-viable candidate like him to be "principled", but I do not. I think it's a cop-out, and kind of embarassing. A little on the stupid side, too; like you're living on some other planet where your actions in this regard amount to a hill of beans.
Epicurus
Reasonable
When it comes to a general election, I am more willing to allow pragmatism to play a factor in my vote.
But the purpose of primaries in America is to vote your heart, not your head. I could not imagine someone who called themselves anti-war supporting anyone other than Ron Paul in the primaries and being able to sleep at night knowing that you have put your party above the lives of American soldiers as well as your own supposed principles.
I am not saying that anyone has to explain anything. What I am saying is that Obama is supported by groups that only support people with their agenda. That is factual.
If you think that Obama or Hillary is going to remove troops from Iraq, you are sadly mistaken. They have no intention of removing troops from Iraq. If you have listened to their disclaimers on the subject or troop removal, you can clearly see this.
This is CodePINK. www.targetofopportunity.com/codepink.htm. Is this what you really want to stand for.
With this kind of support, it is easy to see how the Democrat Party is quickly moving toward Communism. Just look at their supporters.
