RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

No, I'm talking about how those dollars are spent. If you think a government run universal healthcare system is going to be more generous than privatized healthcare, you're sadly mistaken. Not to mention that you'd have a number of doctors who will refuse to see patients on government care and only those with private insurance or just cold hard cash. That isn't conjecture, it's a fact as many doctors now in America and even dentists in England are doing just that.

Yep. Broken.

Pro, on another thread, you claim to want some sort of meaningful dialogue about Obama.

However, the best you're coming up with there are slogans. Meanwhile, on this thread, you keep attacking Bush, who isn't even running...even after you've admitted the allegations about Obama's relationships with Wright and Ayers are suspicous and/or troubling:



And, when the fact you had to retreat to Bush-bashing is pointed out, you retreat to calling other posters liars, even though the record is clear that you were, in fact, the one who started posting the irrelevant anti-Bush (aka "Bush hate") rhetoric.

As for your more substantive point:



No one called him a murderer.

However, the fact he was lucky enough not to kill someone through his crimes doesn't make him less of a terrorist. Furthermore, as noted above, he's one of the few prominent violent radicals from that era who hasn't renounced his past actions.

I would also note that "at least his bombs didn't kill anybody" is not exactly the best justification for why you think someone is moral.

In fact, this begs the question: if you and Ray are correct, and Ayers is such a harmless, right-minded, fellow (who was completely justified in committing multiple reckless felonies that endangered anyone who happened to come near his work), why is Obama now acting so guilty about their relationship?

he blew up a statue dedicated to a riot. they rebuilt the statue and he blew it up again. no attempts on innocent lives, no murder.
just more G-lies.



bush is still president last time i checked. the wars he started are still ongoing. the many thousands are still dead. his lies and pretty much criminal acts are still being unspooled and people are still taking the fall for him. this is all current events. we're talking about a man who is trying to get the job bush holds.
the same way republicans used clinton (who's lies didn't kill hundreds of thousands or violate the constitution) as a warcry in 2000, you still like to attack gore using the same repeated misquote and misrepresentation of the facts from a 1999 quote.

Wrong.

According to both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, Ayers and his cohorts set off a bomb at the Pentagon and blew up a room there.

Again, that doesn't make him a murderer. However, if someone had been unlucky enough to be there when the bomb went off, Ayers would, in fact, be guilty of murder.

In fact, his then-girlfriend was actually killed in a mishap with one of the group's bombs in another incident. Ayers wasn't involved with that incident. However, it points out just how reckless and potentially deadly Ayers' activities were.

As such, the terrorist label certainly remains appropriate, even if he was lucky enough not to kill anyone.

I'd reserve the label "terrorist" for someone who actually injures or kills innocent civilians.

Like, you know, Mr. Bush and company.

Why do you keep coming back to this, G? I've already responded to this being exactly what you do in every thread (including and especially this one), but you ignore that response in favor of just saying "broken" over and over? If you can't take your own medicine, please just say so. Otherwise, I'm not the one who appears "broken" here.

In fact, I would say the guy who creates an avatar just to attack or slander Obama is the one who is filled with 'broken'. Are you that desperate? (It's a funny avatar, though, I'll give you that).



See my point above, and in previous posts. I'm just pointing out some fun facts about George Bush, and making some G-conjecture about Karl Rove. Again and again, if you don't enjoy your own tactics given back to you, then you should just admit I'm making your upset and we'll let it go. Otherwise, what's your beef?



I like how you edited out this line to try and support your point: "Am I convinced that Obama is anti-American because of the church/pastor? No. Again, I think it's a racial motive, versus a political/idealogical motive."

Pretty dishonest there, counselor. How many people need to point out your manipulative nature before you consider the error of your ways?



You stated, verbatim, that I was posting "I hate Bush". Nowhere did I post that in this thread. Thus, you lied. Simple. Fact. The End.

Also, at no time have I posted "anti-Bush/Bush hate" in this thread. Now, I've changed the title of these posts (like you do) to state some facts about GW (he did do cocaine, right?) and to play the G-Card with fun conjecture about Rove. So, again, you're incorrect.

Meanwhile, all I've been doing is pointing out your slanted opinions that you try and post as "facts", along with your slanted-Right website that you quote to seem founded in truth. When, in fact as I pointed out, you're doing nothing but spreading your normal one-sided, hate-filled propaganda. And, when I point that out, it just makes you angry, so you come back with "broken" and all the rest of your tired cliches.

Anything else?



You didn't have to. You implied it with the normal Republican fear-mongering of "he tried to blow up innocent Americans", etc., etc. Please don't insult my intelligence by trying to weasel out of it. It's one your old tricks that you use all the time. I think we're all used to it by now.



I'm sorry, was it "luck", or was it the fact that he never targeted any living beings, but an inert, lifeless statue? Sounds like you're conjecturing to me.



At no point have I disagreed with this. And you keep offering it as if it's supposed to prove something. I have no problem with him blowing up statues. Our Founding Fathers blew up a lot more than statues, and they're the greatest Americans to ever live. So, I find this an arbitrary point.



That's your opinion. You have a right to it, even if I disagree.



Wow, a question no one can answer truthfully, since none of us are Obama, but...as with all of your slanted propaganda...fully loaded with implied guilt and condemnation. As a guess, perhaps it's because he knows the far Right is worried that he's this close to winning the Presidency and they'll do ANYthing to stop that? Maybe it's because fear-mongering and lying are the Republican tactics that have served them forever?

Those are just gueses, mind you. I'm certain you'll have some "factual" answer for us...

If, if, if, if, if....can we use alternate realities as sources of arguments now? Let me know, if so. I've got a doozy of a reality where the Republican party collapsed under its own corruption back during Nixon's era...



And certainly points out nothing about Ayers himself, or his relationship with Obama....which is the point of all of this, right?



Again, you imply "luck" as if you understand the full motivation and plans of Ayers. I like how well you know this man, G. In fact...you seem to know him a little too well. You must be friends! Wait...are YOU an Innocent-American-Killing-Terrorist-Muslim-Baby-Raper?!!!

As for the "label" (which I love how the Right are always quick to slap onto people or groups they don't agree with), I usually call those who casually kill innocents "terrorists", and those that destroy public property in a political demonstration back in the 1960's as "activists"...

A perfectly valid possibility. But, until you travel into the future and know for certain, I can only accept your opinion as informed and valid. But, still, an opinion.

Do I think UHC is the answer? Not really. Thing is, I don't know there is a perfect answer. But, if one system is failing, then I'm open to change and trying something new and different...

I honestly don't know what to say about that.

I guess that until you travel into the future and know for certain, I say that Obama is going to suicide bomb the White House with a dirty bomb nuke thereby killing the millions of innocent men, women, children, and their puppies and kittens with the initial blast and the horrible slow death of radiation poisoning afterwards. Now, Pro, the only way you're going to convince me otherwise is by traveling into the future.

No need to be facetious, Doc. I was trying to respect your opinion, and be cordial with you. You have no concrete fact to back up your opinion. Just personal conjecture based on limited examples. You say it could be bad, I say it could be good. Either way, we're both guessing. Sorry if I don't bow down to your obvious superiority on the subject...

Doc, however, is basing his conjecture on concrete examples of past performance. Past performance may not be a perfect predictor of future success but it does tend to be more reliable than, say, wishful thinking.



You answered your own question. It's a funny avatar (thank you for noticing). No more, no less. And, if it's critical of anyone, its the people who are so enamored of Obama that they can't respond, listen to or read criticism of the man without going nuts.

At least my conjecture is based on facts. I can point to Walter Reed, the ambulance company in nearby Alabama (the name escapes me at the moment) that was in the news recently due to it shutting down because it wasn't receiving money from Medicaid and Medicare on time, or the article that Lothar posted a while back about how British dentists were leaving the government controlled system because they weren't making enough money and only taking cash or private insurance patients. What are you presenting to bolster your opinion? Pro, we've been friends for a while; so you understand that I don't take any of this too seriously. You should also understand that I'm going to give you shit when you make a response that is essentially just 'nuh-uh!'. It was weak and beneath both of our intelligences because all it really says is that facts are useless. I do not believe your concept of gravity, Pro. You must travel to the future to prove to me that you're right. Seriously, guy, if you're going to participate, at least put some effort into it.

Give Pro a break, doc. He's still smarting over that whole "wanting Halle Berry back as Catwoman" debacle.

i know you dont like catchphrases Pro but you really sound like a Obamassiahite.

G-Man : I responded to your posts, and all you can do is take Halle Berry shots at me?

Doc : Dammit, I'm still at work so I don't have time to respond completely to your points. But, let's just say that while I concede that relative examples help to support your points, I still do not assume that it's a foregone certainty that it will play out exactly as you say. And I would think that for every bad example you choose to provide, there are numerous examples where UHC works in other countries. I am not saying I'm one-hundred-percent right, and you're completely wrong. But, I'm not going to go dig up twenty examples to support my position. If you want me to concede your point on this based solely on that fact, then I absolutely do. However, I still stand by my opinion on the subject and will need a lot more thorough examples of how the system doesn't work at all. As for taking it seriously or not, I hope you should know me well enough to know that I take very little on these boards seriously. Most especially NOT this forum...

BASAMS : I hope not. I'm trying to be very clear in all my posts that I am not defending Obama, but trying to point out G-Man's slanted tricks on the subject. That's all.


All in all, Obama is not the man I thought or hoped he was. At least, it's becoming very clear that there's more politician to him than I originally believed. And I don't agree with all of his policies. Even still, I'm willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt and not completely dismiss him based off (what I think are) trivial attacks from the Right. This is, of course, just my opinion...

Its almost like g-man wants to argue no matter what you say.

If you can't respond to my points or won't, then don't. Just don't give me some weak ass bullshit 'you can't timetravel' write-off instead. I mean, you can come up with much better bullshit write-offs.

the fact that pro and i seem to be on the same page here is even more proof that Tennant is a superior Doctor over Eccleston (doctor's avatar).

Pro:I never try to sway anyone, I only post my opinions based on gut instinct, I am seldom wrong about people based on gut. I've rarely voted the wrong person based on gut (GW second term was wrong), but in this election my gut tells me Obama is no good, and my brain tells me McCain has a healthy record of good decision making, and leadership skills needed for the Presidency. GW wasnt a leader he was a loner who was in the lead. Obama is not a leader he is someone who sways whichever way the tide goes.


In the Presidency you need a leader, political views are less important the President is going to have to compromise or be put in a corner (see GW's last 2 years), the secret is getting someone who can lead people to compromise. Obama is and will always be polarizing just by his uppity nature, McCain has always been seen by the left and right as someone that can reach out to get something done.

Yeah, I'm actually disappointed in Obama for that reason.

When he first hit the scene he looked like a guy that was willing to compromise and reach out to the Republicans.

I still like his take on affirmative action. And I actually think he's less polarizing than Hillary.

But the more you find out about his actual views, he's really out there.



I might be willing to agree, but given that Kerry spent the past four years making a fool out of himself, I can't.

Too bad the Democrats stabbed Lieberman in the back. They might have the White House right now.

not to mention the fact that Obama is a closet Muslim.

Praise Allah!

"God DAMN America!"

(What if Ray's an atheist?)

so? he was talking about the national sins. is it really so outrageous that a preacher mention sins and then damnation? is this just more of the conservative idea that to criticize or insult aspects of America or it's history are the same thing as being an enemy of the country?

As noted many times before, there's a difference between constructive criticism and constant, mindless, bashing.

People like Rev. Wright (and, sadly, Ray) will claim to love America but can never bring themselves to defend it. They only attack it.

It's almost like an abusive relationship.

Wow. I guess love is blind.

I defend it all the time. I just defend things you don't like so you ignore that. I could take every "Ray hates America" line you say in response to criticism of Bush or America's immoral acts and throw them right back at you for your attacks (and the other conservatives here) on President Clinton, President Carter, President Roosevelt, etc. And your attacks on the spririt of humanitarianism shown by the existence of social programs.
Every time I praise those social programs, i'm praising America. Everytime I "attack" Bush for his questionable actions, I'm defending America. Every time I talk about what's wrong with America, I am defending America.
Every time you support a man who has made this country a laughing stock, you are attacking America by saying that's the best we can do. Every time you attack someone for not supporting you and wrap yourself in the flag, then you are attacking America by saying it's as bad as you are. Every time you and your party make an election about cheating and manipulation, you are attacking America by helping people unworthy of office get elected.
Why do you hate America, G-man?

for you, it'll probably have to be. but i've never had a problem getting sighted girls to fuck me, like your mom for instance.

I'm sure you're defending an America, but it doesn't seem to be the one that actually exists. maybe in imaginary liberal america (pronounced marxist hippie fun land) your actions are pretty damn patriotic. in the real world, however, it's the same sort of America-bashing we've already got pretentious eurotrash for.

A mom joke. Welcome to me six months ago. Glad you guys finally caught up. Did you shut the the airport for some comedy classes?

Son of Mxy content User BLACK PERSON
7500+ posts Wed Aug 20 2008 01:58 AM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Now that SoM is black he feels he has to keep up with Obama's actions. It's a solidarity thing.

Ray actually expressed his feelings pretty profoundly and fairly. And all you have in return is to insult him and question his patriotism? Who are you to decide if he's right or wrong? What makes your beliefs and political edicts superior to his? What you're saying is that if anyone questions or is critical of the federal government, then they're not patriotic, "true" Americans. So, then, I should lump you in with the Nazis (pronounced fascist dictatorial holocaust land) because you obey and praise the Federal Administration without question?

Double-post! And Time!

Spoken like a true Canadian, Pro.

Ummm...okay?

x sandy. someone wasn't paying attention to the context. I realize marxist hippie fun land probably got under your skin, but I wasn't questioning adler's patriotism (the level of which, I feel, is pretty self-evident) so much as I was questioning how the constructive part of his criticism pertained in any way to the actual United States as opposed to the idealized imaginary United States he so enjoys comparing everything to. call a spade a spade, I say. if he's really so adamant about his political convictions, he shouldn't be so ashamed of them that he has to try and write off his open dissent as some kind of bass-ackwards patriotism.

That's rassict!

the hell are you on, dude?