I'm supprised at the lack of arguing about Obama on this board

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: ZOOYUKA
Originally posted by: jonks

A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows 46% of people who watched Friday night's presidential debate say Democrat Barack Obama did a better job than Republican John McCain; 34% said McCain did better.

You want him to do better than an 12 point beating? That's asking a lot of anyone.

You can also find news outlets that also claim the opposite. Personally, I don't know how anyone can honestly say someone won that lackluster debate. Unimpressed with both on that night.

Gallup isn't a "news outlet", it's the leading polling company in the nation. Wait, are you claiming gallup is biased or incompetent?

As to claiming I can find a reputable polling company that says McCain wins, that's your job, as I posted the Gallup results. To refute me you don't get to say the same thing exists elsewhere, sorry, but your word doesn't count. You have to post it. See how that works?
 

ZOOYUKA

Platinum Member
Jan 24, 2005
2,460
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ZOOYUKA
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ZOOYUKA
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: ZOOYUKA
Originally posted by: palehorse
Have you seen or heard Palin?

enough said.

Have you ever heard Obama speak without his two teleprompters?

actually, yes, I have.

Did the constant stuttering drive you crazy?

So? Your only complaint is honestly that he says "uh" and "umm" too often for your tastes?? Seriously? That's kind of silly, don't you think?

No my problem is that he cannot connect a complete thought.

Wow, this is just a stupidly false comment. Why lie so blatantly when tens of millions of Americans have seen him answer questions coherently at interviews and debates?

Sure, Obama has had some gaffes and embarrassing moments, but he's never had the kind of interview trainwrecks like what we've seen from Palin.


Interviewers don't gun after Obama like they do Palin. Besides, Palin is not running for President. If you want to talk about vice presidential trainwrecks, Biden has an endless supply of material.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: ZOOYUKA
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ZOOYUKA
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ZOOYUKA
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: ZOOYUKA
Originally posted by: palehorse
Have you seen or heard Palin?

enough said.

Have you ever heard Obama speak without his two teleprompters?

actually, yes, I have.

Did the constant stuttering drive you crazy?

So? Your only complaint is honestly that he says "uh" and "umm" too often for your tastes?? Seriously? That's kind of silly, don't you think?

No my problem is that he cannot connect a complete thought.

Wow, this is just a stupidly false comment. Why lie so blatantly when tens of millions of Americans have seen him answer questions coherently at interviews and debates?

Sure, Obama has had some gaffes and embarrassing moments, but he's never had the kind of interview trainwrecks like what we've seen from Palin.


Interviewers don't gun after Obama like they do Palin. Besides, Palin is not running for President. If you want to talk about vice presidential trainwrecks, Biden has an endless supply of material.
Yeah the question Couric asked her about what Newspapers she reads was a real tough one, one that Obama wouldn't have been able to answer:roll:

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Onceler
It amazes me the amount of stuff people are willing to overlook with this guy.

This board is, historically, a rather liberal board. Any time I feel myself start to wonder if I should register as a Democrat, I come here to remind myself why I haven't yet.

Define historically. I have heard tales from the lifers that this board used to be the exact opposite of what you are claiming. I agree with you on the reminding myself part, I just come away with a different conclusion than you.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: ZOOYUKA
Interviewers don't gun after Obama like they do Palin. Besides, Palin is not running for President. If you want to talk about vice presidential trainwrecks, Biden has an endless supply of material.

Call the fscking WAH-mbulence. :roll:

Seriously, this is just pathetic conspiracy theory bullshit.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yeah the question Couric asked her about what Newspapers she reads was a real tough one, one that Obama wouldn't have been able to answer:roll:

Gotcha moment! Gotcha moment! Liberal media! Liberal media! Bias! Bias! Palin is a victim! Wah!

Anyone looking for why McCain has been tanking in the polls need look no further. It's as if McOwen switched parties and took over McCain's campaign agenda and talking points. Their message to America: just ignore reality as much as possible!
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ZOOYUKA
Interviewers don't gun after Obama like they do Palin.

Call the fscking WAH-mbulence. :roll:

I agree, we should /thread right here. "What did you mean you have foreign policy experience because you live near Russia?"

"Hey, what's with these tough questions?"
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Same happens when criticizing Bush(less so nowadays), McCain, Palin. Those who lament the "Liberal bias" of this Board seem to ignore the same from the "Conservative" side. The real problem in P&N has been that since this Boards inception, "Liberals", for the most part, have been right in their criticisms of the "Conservatives" Policies/Actions. There are certainly "Liberal" posters who go too far in their critisisms, but the same is true of certain "Conservatives". It seems to be mostly OT "Conservatives" who lament the "Liberal Bias" of P&N, but mostly as a weak whine as to why they never venture to P&N.

Perhaps if you and your fellow "Conservatives" had a point and were able to make that point reasonably P&N would be a better forum.

They're addicted to outrage..

And outrage is like a drug. It short-circuits logical thinking and provides an exciting blast of emotionalism and self-righteousness.

Facts are hateful, massive, nasty, tiny, factual things. And the facts are looking bad. No matter how much you blabber, eventually, the facts fill your mouth and choke you to death.

The GOP of today earns its bread and butter by constantly giving people their outrage fix, and playing the victim card is an easy way to do it. What they say doesn't have to make sense, it just has to push their buttons.



 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yeah the question Couric asked her about what Newspapers she reads was a real tough one, one that Obama wouldn't have been able to answer:roll:

Gotcha moment! Gotcha moment! Liberal media! Liberal media! Bias! Bias! Palin is a victim! Wah!
Watch this around the 1:25 minute mark.

The TMZ guy asks Couric what magazines/newpapers she reads, and she throws a nice jab at Palin.

Does anyone here really think Palin reads The Economist?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ZOOYUKA
Interviewers don't gun after Obama like they do Palin.

Call the fscking WAH-mbulence. :roll:

I agree, we should /thread right here. "What did you mean you have foreign policy experience because you live near Russia?"

"Hey, what's with these tough questions?"

Well, the real /thread here is that this thread is itself a heated argument about Obama. :p
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Originally posted by: sandorski
Same happens when criticizing Bush(less so nowadays), McCain, Palin. Those who lament the "Liberal bias" of this Board seem to ignore the same from the "Conservative" side. The real problem in P&N has been that since this Boards inception, "Liberals", for the most part, have been right in their criticisms of the "Conservatives" Policies/Actions. There are certainly "Liberal" posters who go too far in their critisisms, but the same is true of certain "Conservatives". It seems to be mostly OT "Conservatives" who lament the "Liberal Bias" of P&N, but mostly as a weak whine as to why they never venture to P&N.

Perhaps if you and your fellow "Conservatives" had a point and were able to make that point reasonably P&N would be a better forum.

They're addicted to outrage..

And outrage is like a drug. It short-circuits logical thinking and provides an exciting blast of emotionalism and self-righteousness.

Facts are hateful, massive, nasty, tiny, factual things. And the facts are looking bad. No matter how much you blabber, eventually, the facts fill your mouth and choke you to death.

The GOP of today earns its bread and butter by constantly giving people their outrage fix, and playing the victim card is an easy way to do it. What they say doesn't have to make sense, it just has to push their buttons.

You should read this commentary by Glenn Greenwald from a few days ago.

Unfortunately, few people seem to click links; the original has links in the article lost in a cut and paste, but here's an excerpt:

The Right in this country -- meaning the faction that followed George Bush for the last eight years -- long ago ceased being a movement of political ideas and is driven by two, and only two, extreme emotions: (1) intense, aggressive rage towards their revolving door of enemies, and (2) bottomless self-pity over how unfairly they're being treated. As their imminent defeat looks increasingly likely (potentially on a humiliating scale), these two impulses are in maximum overdrive, feeding off one another in endless self-perpetuation (the more they lose, the more victimized they feel, the more they rage against their enemies who oppress them, etc.).

The Right's rejection by the public can't possibly be due to anything they have done. It can only be due to some extremely vicious enemy that oppresses them uniquely and so very unfairly. For the moment, they're only losing because The Leftist Mainstream Media hates them and is deeply biased against them...

Using only undisputed facts, one could write volumes -- and many have -- destroying the self-evidently moronic claim that the media outlets owned by the nation's largest and most powerful corporations are tireless propagandists for a Leftist agenda. But those facts can never and will never penetrate because the two-pronged Right-wing dogma of objective superiority and unique victimhood is a matter of religious faith and deep personal need.

Go pick whatever right-wing journals or polemicists you want and (with some isolated exceptions) what you will find is this simultaneously self-loving and self-pitying worldview permeating virtually everything they say, think and believe. You can reduce most of their arguments, and all of their group-based drives, to a rudimentary logical proposition: "I am X, and X is both superior and treated with deep unfairness." It doesn't matter what "X" happens to be for any one of them -- conservative, male, Republican, Christian, Jewish, religious, white, Western, American -- that is the formula that expresses how they perceive the world and their role in it.

Petulance and self-pitying grievance is what fuels them. This endless need to self-victimize would be one thing if the groups to which they belonged were small minorities targeted by a hostile and more powerful majority. But the exact opposite is true. By and large, the groups to which they belong (and therefore see as oppressed and treated with unparalleled unfairness) are the most numerous and the most powerful in the country and always have been. Yet still -- nothing is their fault; they face hopeless obstacles imposed by Evil and Omnipotent Forces which hate them; "I am X, and X is both superior and treated with deep unfairness."

They have run the country for the entire decade. For the last 14 years, they've controlled the House for all but 20 months. They spent substantial parts of the last eight years in control of all branches of government simultaneously. They've won 7 out of the last 10 presidential elections. The country's largest and richest corporations -- including the ones owning the most powerful media outlets -- pour money into their party and perceive, correctly, that their interests are served by the Right's agenda. But still -- they can't get a fair shake; everything is deeply oppressive to them; it's all so unfair.

As they've ruled the country, it's been driven into the ground on every level. The President they revered and endlessly glorified is the most unpopular in modern American history. They've ushered in disastrous wars, virtual economic panic, state-sanctioned torture and astonishing debt. Their leaders have been exposed as bloated, corrupted criminals and hypocrites. Their current candidate chose as his Vice President someone who can barely string together a complete sentence or opine on the simplest of matters, and himself acknowledges that he's been joined at the hip with the failed Bush Presidency on virtually all key issues.

But still -- they're about to lose not because of anything they did, but because the corporate-owned Media hates them and is distorting their message; because they're being persecuted for their religion (which more than 75% of Americans share); because they are just weak, kind, good little Davids being hopelessly crushed by the Goliath forces arrayed in a confederacy against them. That they belong to virtually every majority group and wield most power makes no impact on any of that. This kind of self-centered, self-victimizing, self-pitying worldview provides great psychological comfort and a release from any responsibility for one's actions, and so they are highly motivated never to give it up. To the contrary, they'll cling to it -- are clinging to it -- even more desperately as their failures and rejection by the public become more vividly apparent.

If you would like assurance this is not merely a modern phenomenon, it's not, as this classic 1964 essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics", points out.

Its references are outdated, but the same issues are in it.

Excerpt:

If, after our historically discontinuous examples of the paranoid style, we now take the long jump to the contemporary right wing, we find some rather important differences from the nineteenth-century movements. The spokesmen of those earlier movements felt that they stood for causes and personal types that were still in possession of their country?that they were fending off threats to a still established way of life. But the modern right wing, as Daniel Bell has put it, feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power. Their predecessors had discovered conspiracies; the modern radical right finds conspiracy to be betrayal from on high.
Important changes may also be traced to the effects of the mass media. The villains of the modern right are much more vivid than those of their paranoid predecessors, much better known to the public; the literature of the paranoid style is by the same token richer and more circumstantial in personal description and personal invective. For the vaguely delineated villains of the anti-Masons, for the obscure and disguised Jesuit agents, the little-known papal delegates of the anti-Catholics, for the shadowy international bankers of the monetary conspiracies, we may now substitute eminent public figures like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower., secretaries of State like Marshall, Acheson, and Dulles, Justices of the Supreme Court like Frankfurter and Warren, and the whole battery of lesser but still famous and vivid alleged conspirators headed by Alger Hiss...

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms?he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date fort the apocalypse. (?Time is running out,? said Welch in 1951. ?Evidence is piling up on many sides and from many sources that October 1952 is the fatal month when Stalin will attack.?)
As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated?if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid?s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.
The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman?sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid?s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone?s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).
It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. Secret organizations set up to combat secret organizations give the same flattery. The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through ?front? groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy.* Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist ?crusades? openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth.
On the other hand, the sexual freedom often attributed to the enemy, his lack of moral inhibition, his possession of especially effective techniques for fulfilling his desires, give exponents of the paranoid style an opportunity to project and express unacknowledgeable aspects of their own psychological concerns. Catholics and Mormons?later, Negroes and Jews?have lent themselves to a preoccupation with illicit sex. Very often the fantasies of true believers reveal strong sadomasochistic outlets, vividly expressed, for example, in the delight of anti-Masons with the cruelty of Masonic punishments.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,392
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77

I didn?t see that, but if he said that, it?s stupid. Regardless, it doesn?t change the fact that any attempt to scrutinize Obama ? even the slightest ? is met with rabid hatred and contempt. Besides, according to your fellow Dems, guilt by association is out.:

Originally posted by: Rainsford, excusing Obama's association with AyersI think people are defined by their behavior, not the behavior of others

So you admit that what he wrote was stupid, but people calling it stupid is somehow evidence that legitimate criticism of Obama isn't allowed. That's rich.

Wow... you fail at logic, reading comprehension, cause and effect, ... should I continue?

Do you find it funny to say that I fail at reading comprehension after admitting you didn't see that the OP criticized Obama's name in a post that was all of about 5 sentences long?

LMAO you fail again, thanks for proving my point! I'll throw you a bone, here: MISSING a post (as in, REPLYING without reading all 2 zillion replies first) and MISREADING a post (reading but failing to grasp) are two different things. I'm sure you'll jump up and and cry about how the post I didn't read was still on the first page. Yeah, I replied after reading the very first post. Sue me.

You, on the other hand, are simply incapable of basic reason and critical thinking.

Can you see the difference yet, or do you need to see it in crayola first?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77

I didn?t see that, but if he said that, it?s stupid. Regardless, it doesn?t change the fact that any attempt to scrutinize Obama ? even the slightest ? is met with rabid hatred and contempt. Besides, according to your fellow Dems, guilt by association is out.:

Originally posted by: Rainsford, excusing Obama's association with AyersI think people are defined by their behavior, not the behavior of others

So you admit that what he wrote was stupid, but people calling it stupid is somehow evidence that legitimate criticism of Obama isn't allowed. That's rich.

Wow... you fail at logic, reading comprehension, cause and effect, ... should I continue?

Do you find it funny to say that I fail at reading comprehension after admitting you didn't see that the OP criticized Obama's name in a post that was all of about 5 sentences long?

LMAO you fail again, thanks for proving my point! I'll throw you a bone, here: MISSING a post (as in, REPLYING without reading all 2 zillion replies first) and MISREADING a post (reading but failing to grasp) are two different things. I'm sure you'll jump up and and cry about how the post I didn't read was still on the first page. Yeah, I replied after reading the very first post. Sue me.

You, on the other hand, are simply incapable of basic reason and critical thinking.

Can you see the difference yet, or do you need to see it in crayola first?

If your defense is that you don't actually read threads before replying to them, and miss posts that were not only on the first page, but quoted repeatedly by other people replying to it, (some even bolding the passage) that's fine by me.

As far as your assessment of my critical thinking and reasoning skills, I don't really care what you think. I've been around here long enough that anyone who pays attention to my posts knows that although I talk shit to people I think are acting stupid, I put a fair amount of thought into my own posts.

You haven't exactly distinguished yourself in the few weeks you've been posting here recently, so I'm pretty okay with not having your endorsement.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Originally posted by: Onceler
It amazes me the amount of stuff people are willing to overlook with this guy.

Most people are perfectly willing to overlook things that their club does that they otherwise wouldn't. More posters here, at least the more vocal ones, prefer one club over the other.

Go read AR15.com to balance it out.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,392
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77

I didn?t see that, but if he said that, it?s stupid. Regardless, it doesn?t change the fact that any attempt to scrutinize Obama ? even the slightest ? is met with rabid hatred and contempt. Besides, according to your fellow Dems, guilt by association is out.:

Originally posted by: Rainsford, excusing Obama's association with AyersI think people are defined by their behavior, not the behavior of others

So you admit that what he wrote was stupid, but people calling it stupid is somehow evidence that legitimate criticism of Obama isn't allowed. That's rich.

Wow... you fail at logic, reading comprehension, cause and effect, ... should I continue?

Do you find it funny to say that I fail at reading comprehension after admitting you didn't see that the OP criticized Obama's name in a post that was all of about 5 sentences long?

LMAO you fail again, thanks for proving my point! I'll throw you a bone, here: MISSING a post (as in, REPLYING without reading all 2 zillion replies first) and MISREADING a post (reading but failing to grasp) are two different things. I'm sure you'll jump up and and cry about how the post I didn't read was still on the first page. Yeah, I replied after reading the very first post. Sue me.

You, on the other hand, are simply incapable of basic reason and critical thinking.

Can you see the difference yet, or do you need to see it in crayola first?

If your defense is that you don't actually read threads before replying to them, and miss posts that were not only on the first page, but quoted repeatedly by other people replying to it, (some even bolding the passage) that's fine by me.

As far as your assessment of my critical thinking and reasoning skills, I don't really care what you think. I've been around here long enough that anyone who pays attention to my posts knows that although I talk shit to people I think are acting stupid, I put a fair amount of thought into my own posts.

You haven't exactly distinguished yourself in the few weeks you've been posting here recently, so I'm pretty okay with not having your endorsement.

LOL I haven't distinguished myself? On an Internet forum? Are you kidding me?

I do appreciate your sense of humor; I'll give you that ;) .
 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
They cast a blind eye towards Obama and place great joy in putting Sarah Palin under an electron microscope. You know...she's got a preggers daughter...oh my !!!

Hmmm...the air must be thin up there on the 86th floor!

1. Who is "they"? (and if you say MSM, then you should include Fox)
2. Everyone is under that microscope...and I can guarantee that it's been much worse for Obama as he's been under it far longer and by more people (remember he had a primary election to be scrutinized as well!).
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77

LOL I haven't distinguished myself? On an Internet forum? Are you kidding me?

I do appreciate your sense of humor; I'll give you that ;) .

That was me trying to say you've been making an ass of yourself nicely.
 

idiotekniQues

Platinum Member
Jan 4, 2007
2,572
0
71
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Damn, like 5 people beat me to calling the OP a moron.

That shocks you? Anyone without a Obama screen saver on this forum gets hammered by the circle-jerkers. Its usually 1 or 2 smart dems that make points and argue facts, followed by 6 or 7 "idiot" "moron" "zomg you repug".

It probably would have helped the OP if he had made some kind of legitimate or intelligent argument, instead of just repeating talking points that were beaten to death months ago.

I mean, c'mon, his OP is the more or less the definition of the classic internet troll, right down the misspellings of easy words and the single inflammatory statement without substance.
You can whine "liberal forum" all you want, but I suggest you be careful what you defend if you don't want to lose all credibility here.


See how you completely discredited the OP without calling him a "fucking moron" or "idiot"? Funny how that works...

well why pussy foot around. the OP is a fuckin moron.

people exactly like him are dragging this country down the shithole.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Onceler
It amazes me the amount of stuff people are willing to overlook with this guy.

Par for the course my friend with this board....you should have been here when Gore and Kerry were running, a regular liberal circle jerk in these parts :)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Onceler
It amazes me the amount of stuff people are willing to overlook with this guy.

Par for the course my friend with this board....you should have been here when Gore and Kerry were running, a regular liberal circle jerk in these parts :)

All those facts and issues you laid out - I'm convinced, McCain 08.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: Onceler
such as Wright, Aryes, his name, his record
The fact that this guy is endorsed by terrorist states and Farakahn
This guy seems absolutly anti American to me.

You just dont get it do you?

People arent concerned with Rezko, Ayers, Wright, or any other past associations.

Here is what America is looking at... Issues... and what the winner will do as president. That is why Obama is winning. Why dont you post something along those lines to make it relevant?
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.
 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

That's just not true (at least not from what I've observed).
Also, you should be careful of the pot calling the kettle black!
Many of the right wing Republican groups are very intolerent about people of faith...at least any faith that is different than their own (e.g. Judaism, Muslim, etc...).
I have yet to witness a single person here that looks up to anyone who hates America...they just don't like what Republicans would turn America into.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The majority of people on this forum look down on people of faith and look up to people that hate America.

Stop being stupid.