Heck, there's a lot about McCain I don't really agree with, but it's mostly the things he concerns himself with least, so it's not as big of a deal. There are some significant issues in which I disagree with both Hillary and Obama.
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Beyond Muscle Forums > Off Topic > to try and offset roids |
| Posted by: Michael218532 May 7 2008, 03:40 PM |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki-oMjmwiUA North Carolina Victory Speech http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/clinton-era-dnc-chief-bac_n_99572.html Backed by DNC chairman under Bill Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/obamas-reverend-wright-pr_n_99215.html Reverend Wright Response by Obama http://allafrica.com/stories/200805050165.html Obama's ceasefire deal with Niger - ""The MEND command is seriously considering a temporary ceasefire appeal by Senator Barack Obama. Obama is someone we respect and hold in high esteem," the militant group said in an e-mailed statement." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpBzQI_7ez8 He liked pot http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422 Refutes any criticism for Obama's Senate record http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012202614.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 Washington Post rates economic plans in January- Obama A-, McCain D+ http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120234937353949449.html Wall Street Journal says Obama has a better health care plan than Hillary http://youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY just to piss people off who say people blindly follow obama...how can you not support him after watching this? |
| Posted by: ftank May 7 2008, 04:17 PM |
| It's quite interesting. I really respect Obama as a person and what he is trying to represent and do, I simply do not agree with his political agendas. I guess that's why I'm a Republican and not a Democrat. Heck, there's a lot about McCain I don't really agree with, but it's mostly the things he concerns himself with least, so it's not as big of a deal. There are some significant issues in which I disagree with both Hillary and Obama. |
| Posted by: Purge May 7 2008, 04:19 PM |
| While I don't buy into the idea that Obama will somehow turn America into Syria if he's elected, I also disagree with some of the more liberal policies he's propogating. With Ron Paul as good as out, I'm probably gonna stay home on election day.  |
| Posted by: Kevin43403 May 7 2008, 09:27 PM |
| Fuck NObama. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 7 2008, 09:49 PM |
Michael...good post, very informative. Y'know...if there were any substance to Obama.  |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 10 2008, 04:04 PM |
| http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080510/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement Just did some volunteer work with the campaign here in San Diego. Hung out on the boardwalk, helping people get registered to vote. Michael, if you (or anyone else) wants to help, click http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/actioncenter/ |
| Posted by: Michael218532 May 10 2008, 07:31 PM |
| im glad it looks like this is finally coming to a close...the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to attack each other, its time to unify and focus on McCain. Hillary will drop out after the next round of primaries if she has any sense at all |
| Posted by: Kevin43403 May 10 2008, 08:23 PM | ||
Thats because all dems are fucking retards. Every supporter I talk to of Obama has no idea what they are talking about. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 10 2008, 08:26 PM | ||||
It's simple to click the above links (and many more) to research Barack, just as any other candidate, Democrat or otherwise. Ignorance is not exclusive to either party. |
| Posted by: Michael218532 May 11 2008, 01:26 AM | ||||
apparently you have no idea what you are talking about if you think all dems are retards, states with higher average IQs tend to be blue states |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 11 2008, 01:44 AM | ||||||
I always hear that shit, it's because the the major cities tend to be liberal and vote Democrat. And you want to know which cities in the U.S. have the most crime and are in the most debt due to high taxes? Cities run by DEMOCRATS. I have nothing against Democrats at all, in fact the majority of people I know are Democrats since my nationality is foreign (they aren't left-leaning though, more-so conservative Democrats), but it just pisses me off when people say states with higher IQs tend to be blue states. If they have such high IQs, why the fuck can't they solve any of the problems in their states? |
| Posted by: Michael218532 May 11 2008, 01:48 AM |
| i was simply responding to the statement that all Democrats are retards...that is a stupid assertion and doesnt make sense when presented with the fact that smarter states vote Dem, i dont believe that statistic has any correlation with performance |
| Posted by: alexoc949 May 11 2008, 02:06 AM |
| i'm all about obama, but i'm not on bn to argue my points.. who cares really.. people either disagree or agree with dem or rep stances.. it's like a dog chasing it's tail argueing it |
| Posted by: Kevin43403 May 11 2008, 02:08 AM | ||||||
Thats very true. I have also met many republicans who don't know their ass from a whole in the ground but it just seems that most of the Obama supporters I have talked to have no clue. |
| Posted by: Kevin43403 May 11 2008, 02:10 AM | ||
I was just a little upset at the ignorance displayed by many Obama supporters. I meant no disrespect. |
| Posted by: Purge May 11 2008, 10:01 AM |
| I agree that many of the Obama supporters are as blind and as sheepish as the Hannity-esque Bush devotees. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 11 2008, 09:40 PM |
| http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004406277_evangvote11m.html |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 11 2008, 10:12 PM |
| http://www.newsweek.com/id/136440 |
| Posted by: Roids May 11 2008, 11:41 PM |
I suppose that since states with higher average IQs tend to vote democratic, that must be due to the fact that most poor people who live off of govt subsidies and tend to vote democratic are in a higher IQ bracket. And of course, most of the evil rich executives of big corporations, who contribute big bucks to republican campaigns, obviously have lower IQs.  Oh the irony! |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 12 2008, 12:11 AM |
| http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24562497/ |
| Posted by: Roids May 12 2008, 12:16 AM | ||
Eff this debate crap. I'd like to see Obama and McCain enter the octagon and duke it out. Whoever wins gets my vote! |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 12 2008, 12:17 AM | ||||
You're treading on soft ground my friend. I don't think our boy would stand a chance considering he's going against a dem from the hood  |
| Posted by: Michael218532 May 12 2008, 12:23 AM |
| http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html?referrer=digg -from january but very good article about obama's success in the Illinois state legislature |
| Posted by: Roids May 12 2008, 12:36 AM |
| Enjoying your reading so far JW? I imagine that's why youve sat in this thread for the last 20 minutes. I'm glad that my previous posts have reduced you and your alterboy Michael, to cutting and pasting! Edit: Damn this is taking you a long time! Next time, Mikey needs to post a link to a pop-up book! |
| Posted by: Michael218532 May 12 2008, 01:08 AM |
| dont call me mikey please... have you actually read anything posted? or do you only read things that reinforce your points of view? |
| Posted by: Michael218532 May 12 2008, 01:14 AM |
| ...and about copy and pasting...you are a huge hypocrite...i cant even count the amount of topics you started with a link to an anti-obama article... |
| Posted by: Josh47933 May 12 2008, 02:28 AM |
| It will be interesting when the general election debates start and Obama's very limted practical experience is juxtaposed next to McCain's resume' of lifelong service to his country. Republicans all over the country are cheering for Obama eventually winning the nomination, bloodied as he is. He's going to be easy pickings for Republican strategists. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 12 2008, 09:14 AM | ||
Had the thread minimized. Lots of great reading here though. Did you check out the Newsweek article I posted? Pretty interesting look inside Barack's campaign, his communication style, etc. It also goes into depth about possible strategies for the fall. Josh...you really think the GOP would rather face Obama than Clinton? I thought for sure it was the other way around. Personally, I like that Barack hasn't been in Washington all that long. Bush surrounded himself with old school DC regulars and that didn't seem to work, so some fresh ideas and new ways of looking at things might be what we need at this time in our history...imho. Anyway...back to the links/info: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1093167&srvc=home&position=active |
| Posted by: Roids May 12 2008, 09:35 AM |
| Wow. I was a bit drunk last night and did some flaming in here apparently. Sorry guys (except for Javy and Michael). Yeah, I will say that Barrack's positions on the issues have stayed fairly consistent, as scary as it may be. I also agree that probably he has a much better chance at beating McCain than Hillary. It might be something like a Clinton/Dole race all over again. A crotchety old man against a younger fresh-faced and upbeat candidate. I just wish republicans had taken a better look at Romney. Unlike the other candidates, he was much more than just a professional politician. He has a proven track record of success in the private sector. He just may have been the guy to really adress some of the problems the economy is faced with right now. At times like this, we need more than just media sound bites and partisan fighting. It isn't often that we have a choice with this kind of real world experience. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 12 2008, 09:41 AM |
| http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24556912/ |
| Posted by: Roids May 12 2008, 09:46 AM |
| Wow! Sounds like whoever wrote that article really wants to suck him off. MSNBC has been one big Obamamania love fest for quite some time now. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 12 2008, 09:50 AM | ||
"Is he a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon or a lucky, well-timed candidate?" They left the possibility open that he could be either. http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/11/obama-takes-superdelegate-lead/ |
| Posted by: Roids May 12 2008, 10:02 AM |
| Hillary needs to have some pride and bow out now. There is no way she can win. She may just be staying in out of spite now. That is, she may realize that she has no chance and is just staying to try and do some harm to Obama's campaign for the GE. That would be fitting for the Clintons since it seems they've always been in it for themselves. Not that it bothers me for her to do so. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 12 2008, 09:18 PM |
| http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24583678/ |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 12 2008, 11:53 PM |
| I like how Obama got that law passed in Illinois that requires interrogations to be recorded. I do think the police sometimes go way beyond "interrogations" and beat the shit out of people, especially in the inner city, to get a confession. But Obama has also shown that he is weak on crime. A law in Chicago was introduced that would make punishments more harsh for gang members that committed violent felonies (I believe the purpose of this bill was to enforce the death penalty more easily on gang members that committed murder). And as we all know, the southside of Chicago is one of the worst places in the U.S. But Obama didn't allow it to get passed because he was afraid it was targeting minorities and the poor. Well who the fuck does he think are members of violent gangs in southside Chicago? POOR MINORITIES. This whole argument that the death penalty unfairly targets minorities is such bullshit. Maybe it's because minorities commit more violent crimes, did he or anyone else give that a thought? |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 12 2008, 11:57 PM | ||
Didn't know about that, thanks. Just found http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html on it. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 14 2008, 07:56 PM |
| http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24628804/ |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 14 2008, 11:26 PM |
| If there was no racism in this country, the Democratic party wouldn't exist. They perpetuate racism in this country moreso than anyone else. They are the true racists. And it's all out of selfishness, just so they get voted into office and have their policies passed. Get rid of many of the Democrats currently in office, and we'll be a LOT further in positive race relations than what we're currently at. And the Dems would have you believe we're the most racist country in the world, which is the polar opposite of us. 99.999% of people in this country aren't racist. Sure, we all stereotype, but who the fuck doesn't? We make generalizations, and there typically is some truth behind generalities and stereotypes. |
| Posted by: Michael218532 May 15 2008, 02:15 AM |
| how do Dems perpetuate racism again? JFK - Dem Bill Clinton - Dem George Allen - Repub Conrad Burns - Repub Wasn't Nixon's "Southern Strategy" partially based on racist policies? Didn't Strom Thurmond switch from the Democratic to the Republican Party because of his racist views? Race relations in the US aren't good enough yet for everyone just to assume equality. Things still need to get done for attitudes to continue shifting. Running on these lines does not perpetuate racism until racism has been adequately addressed. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 15 2008, 09:23 AM |
| http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrp-v2tHaDo http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/15/1024654.aspx |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 15 2008, 01:24 PM | ||
Because they indirectly tell them they aren't good enough, so they have to pass all of these laws just so they can keep up. Who do you think No Child Left Behind was targeting whites?? They marginalize blacks by telling them they aren't good enough to perform certain jobs, or go to certain schools, or perform well on certain exams, so they give them advantages by passing policies that, in effect, eventually hurt the country. And then on top of that, if they don't agree with someone, they call them a racist. Everything to them revolves around race. They can't get tired of talking about it. Look at all of the MSM, they keep bringing up race. One of Clinton's campaign spokeswoman said Obama has made it this far because he's black, and everyone jumps on it and says she's a racist for speaking the truth. Someone says Obama is articulate, and he's deemed a racist. If racism didn't exist, the Democratic Party wouldn't exist. 95% of blacks are voting for Obama due to his race, is that racism? Only when it supports the Democratic cause is it not deemed racism. But if it's against their cause, it's racism. |
| Posted by: Michael218532 May 15 2008, 06:36 PM |
| i guess we just disagree on the status of race relations in this country...as i see it, equality simply hasn't been achieved and some measures do need to be taken to level the playing field. i do respect your pov though that by focusing on race relations you could be deepening the divide, i just don't think there has been enough done policy wise to get rid of the divide in the first place. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 15 2008, 09:16 PM |
| http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24650698/ |
| Posted by: Roids May 16 2008, 09:28 AM |
| http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/despite-oil-crisis-democrats-again.html |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 16 2008, 09:33 AM |
| Barack's energy http://zfacts.com/p/661.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24370169/ |
| Posted by: Roids May 16 2008, 10:01 AM |
| The gas tax holiday is about as long term of a solution as tappping the national oil reserves. Ultimately, it doesn't do jack shit. Obamas proposals look fairly sound, but it still fails to address the short term problem of high gas prices. Becoming less dependent on foreign oil requires both a short term solution and a long term solution. All of the dem's proposals only address the longterm, such as alternative fuels. That's all good for the long term, but it'll take 15-20 years. In the interim, we need our own oil. |
| Posted by: willpiazza31 May 16 2008, 10:03 AM |
| If you think our "own" oil is going to lower prices you must be crazy. Who do you think will sell this oil? Exxon, Shell etc right? It's a free market meaning they'll still go after the most profit. It's not like we live in Venezuela where the country owns the oil and doesn't rip off it's citizens by selling it to them. |
| Posted by: Roids May 16 2008, 10:10 AM |
| Well, it's OPEC that sets the prices. Here's what would happen. We tell OPEC to increase production to bring the cost down or we will otherwise have to start drilling and tapping our own resources to bring the cost down. OPEC will probably increase their output rith away to discourage us from drilling. Also, futures traders who are sitting on $125 barrels of oil start worrying that the market is going to be flooded with more oil once we tap our own resources. So they start selling off in order to cutting their loses before the prices drop too far. Basically, if congress approved offshore drilling, the prices would drop a great deal overnight. That is, if there's no democrat president to veto it (i.e. taking care of enviro-lobbyists). Problem is, the A-rabs know we won't do it, so we have no bargaining power with them. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 16 2008, 06:39 PM |
| http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24667991/ |
| Posted by: willpiazza31 May 16 2008, 07:18 PM |
| So I read that King Towelhead told Bush to fuck off and that he's not increasing oil output. |
| Posted by: Roids May 16 2008, 08:22 PM |
| He did give a good retort to Bush's comments this morning, particularly in his opening comments. I'll certainly give him credit for that. That doesn't mean that meeting with the Iranian govt with no preconditions is wise or would accomplish anything. |
| Posted by: Michael218532 May 17 2008, 12:45 AM |
| article about obama's response... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/16/obama-responds-to-bush-mc_n_102135.html ...diplomacy anyone? |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 17 2008, 10:30 AM |
| Speaking (falsely) of "appeasment"..... http://www.break.com/index/chris-matthews-owns-some-blabber-mouthb.html "It's the same exact thing....it energizes and legitamizes.....it's the same exact thing....it energizes and legitamizes....its the same thing!" |
| Posted by: Roids May 17 2008, 11:05 AM |
| I still don't see how diplomacy with a guy who calls for the destruction of another state(s) could ever be productive. Most likely, Obama will do it and it'll be about as productive as Jimmy Carter's recent meeting with Hamas. Only this time, it'll be much more humiliating with Obama being the commander-in-chief. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 17 2008, 11:07 AM |
| http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#diplomacy |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 20 2008, 09:50 AM |
| After Barack's http://www.topnews.in/usa/new-oregon-polls-oregon-wants-obama-2409 he will have claim to the http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24714065/...hopefully the superdelegates will continue their trend and send him over the top. |
| Posted by: Roids May 20 2008, 11:42 AM |
| Over the top of a bridge! |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 20 2008, 09:28 PM |
| Even http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/20/1044179.aspx don't want to work against Barack's candidacy. McCain media consultant Mark McKinnon has told many in the press, including First Read, that he would no longer work for McCain if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee. "I just don't want to work against an Obama candidacy" |
| Posted by: Roids May 20 2008, 10:38 PM |
| Dr.Hoops. I'd be willing to bet that you caught the Obama fever the moment you first saw him on TV giving one of his first "Hope and Change" campaign speaches. Then, long after the fact, you looked up his voting record and read some of his ideas on various policies and thought "wow, he even has some good ideas for when he becomes president! Yeah Obama baby!!!" I'm afraid that he is going to be our next prez though. Not because he's the best candidate, but because the republicans have failed us. They had every opportunity to get some shit done when they had control, but they sat on their hands. Frankly, they deserve this kick in the teeth. What is really scary is the fact that the current democratic congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush, and it looks like they're about to have full control of the govt after this election. |
| Posted by: Alan115396 May 20 2008, 10:51 PM |
| You Political kniggs are the best Tricky Dick was the best Foreign Policy President ever |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 20 2008, 10:52 PM | ||
While OPEC may control some of the prices, I definitely think these greedy ass oil companies are gouging the shit out of the consumer. Gas prices have more than doubled since 2004. It only took a couple years after Exxon-Mobil merged for gasoline prices to start increasing gradually, and then they use bullshit arguments such as increased worldwide demand and other excuses to justify these high prices. It's a combination of environmental Democrats and greedy Republicans that have attributed to these insane gas prices (along with dumbass Americans with their Hummers and Escalades), but in this case, I think the Republicans may be more to blame (specifically big oil salesman like Bush). You can't argue with the fact that oil company profits have increased three or four-fold the past few years. I have no problem with any companies making profits, but when they are going up like crazy at the expense of something every American NEEDS, then that's really fucked up and the government needs to step in and regulate these snakes. |
| Posted by: Roids May 20 2008, 11:01 PM |
| There are many factors contributing to the price hike. The greatest is global demand. The prices first began increasing in the late 1990s as China's economy began growing at double digits. India's economy has followed. This is the primary reason the prices are increasing and it isn't going to slow down, ever. The republican congress, under Bill CLinton, pointed this out and actually approved drilling in ANWAR, only to have it vetoed by Bill Clinton. Instead, Clinton tapped the national oil reserves, which lowered gas prices for a short time. None of the solutions offered by any of the candidates now actually address the issue of short term energy independence, while we explore longer term solutions, such as bio-fuels, nuclear power, etc. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 20 2008, 11:02 PM |
| Roids, you're right about my gravitation toward Barack. Pretty much dead on. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i23h4XqvR0Ph96aWYyZ4PgI54YCwD90PP90O0 |
| Posted by: Roids May 20 2008, 11:06 PM | ||
So, if a republican candidate came on the scene and said, we must become energy independent and this will mean telling the enviromental interests, we're going to drill in ANWAR and off the coasts of FL and CA. We love ya, but you're gonna have to suck it up on this one. This is what it will take to become less involved with the middle east and bring down gas prices, in the short term, as we explore alternative energy sources. Would you vote for such a republican JW? |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 20 2008, 11:08 PM |
| I do think we need to be drilling a lot more and building more refineries, but how can one explain the three- or four-fold increase in profits the last decade? |
| Posted by: Roids May 20 2008, 11:13 PM | ||
I believe futures speculators are the biggest culprets. It is similar to the gigantic surge in real estate prices that we saw from about 2002 to 2006. The falling value of the USD$ has a lot to do with it also. OPEC nations trade oil in the USD$. Therefore, when the $ value drops, the cost of everything increases. But, the oild companies could sell oil for less, not a whole lot less, but they could sell for less and still be very profitable. However, the profit margin is approximately the same now as it was years ago. So, it isn't just the oil companies fucking us. There are numerous factor contributing to the increase. |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 20 2008, 11:19 PM |
| Ok, cool. Guess I just need to become more educated in the oil industry and how it works. Nah, fuck it, too lazy. I'll just be the typical American and blame the corporations for all of the world's problems and ask the government to fix things, thinking they have my best interests at heart |
| Posted by: Roids May 20 2008, 11:21 PM | ||
Barrak and Hillary would probably fight to give you a rimjob for that comment. Hell, Bush might even grease his fist.Vote Libertarian! |
| Posted by: Alan115396 May 20 2008, 11:22 PM |
| |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 20 2008, 11:26 PM | ||
I've supported certain Republican candidates in the past, both locally and nationally. Depending on the candidate, the issues, the year, etc, I'd support one again, definitely. http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080515/OPINION12/805150431/1002/OPINION |
| Posted by: Roids May 20 2008, 11:27 PM | ||||
Are you saying that deep inside you hate poor people?? And minorities?? |
| Posted by: Alan115396 May 20 2008, 11:30 PM |
 He's kinda jacked and tan.......he's got my vote  |
| Posted by: Roids May 20 2008, 11:32 PM |
| I pictured him having a 6-pack. I'm disappointed. No way I could faint at one of his speeches like JW! |
| Posted by: Alan115396 May 20 2008, 11:34 PM | ||
As Doogs would say....... He'll go on his cut once he gets the nomination |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 20 2008, 11:37 PM | ||
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU  |
| Posted by: Alan115396 May 20 2008, 11:48 PM | ||||
I'd pump that without a doubt Nice cans  |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 20 2008, 11:54 PM |
| Oh hell yeah...Obama girl is hot. http://oliverwillis.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/13/obamagirl.jpg |
| Posted by: Roids May 21 2008, 07:49 AM |
| She is hot. She looks like she might be a little ghetto though. I'd still spray her up nicely. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 21 2008, 07:44 PM |
| http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN2034087120080521 That gap is sure to widen once the nomination is secured, but still a good sign for the time being. |
| Posted by: Roids May 21 2008, 08:34 PM |
| It's a depressing sign of what's to come. I prolly won't even vote this time around. I bet you're gonna have a premature ejaculation pulling that lever in November. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 21 2008, 09:22 PM | ||
I'm happy to be excited about a candidate. Usually it's the old "Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich" for me. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abVZQZVZTUe8&refer=home |
| Posted by: ftank May 22 2008, 09:59 AM | ||||
If Hilary and Obama join, holy fuck that's a lot of money. Onward to November! |
| Posted by: willpiazza31 May 22 2008, 10:02 AM |
| More money raised = more suckers buying his BS |
| Posted by: Roids May 22 2008, 11:33 AM | ||
Werd. If he were white and not as charismatic, he'd just sound like another far left fringe empty suit. |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 22 2008, 03:46 PM |
| I guarantee you all, if Obama wins the Presidency, say hello to higher taxes. Why the hell do you all think the Democrats are pushing so hard for this global warming bullshit? Scientifically, it has been PROVEN that the Earth's oceans are COOLING, which is the biggest indicator for climate change on this planet, yet do you hear about it in the MSM? China had record snowfalls this past winter, Saudi Arabia saw snow for the first time in years, but you're not hearing about this from the MSM because they're so fucking biased. It's a fact that the younger you are, the more liberal you are. But the older you get, the wiser you become, thus older people tend to be conservative. If you're on welfare, you should lose your voting rights, because if you're taking handouts, you're going to vote for the candidate that wants to give more handouts. Very good quote by Norman Thomas. I hope you all can see how much of a truth this is becoming as our nation slides further down an embankment until we're giving 80% of our income to the government: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." |
| Posted by: Michael218532 May 22 2008, 04:21 PM |
| let him get rid of the bush tax cuts, they certainly don't affect me (at least not yet, hopefully someday i will be making bank) your global warming "evidence" is pretty anecdotal. there is some very strong evidence behind global warming. also, helping the environment is a good thing, and researching alternative fuel sources are a good thing. |
| Posted by: Tswole May 22 2008, 05:14 PM |
| i dont buy into the global warming bull. its all just regular climate shifts. here in VA we had lows last week that were 20 degrees lower then the norm. guess global warming hasnt worked its way over here yet. |
| Posted by: Michael218532 May 22 2008, 05:52 PM |
| anecdotal again...if you look at overall climate statistics there is a pretty clear shift |
| Posted by: Roids May 22 2008, 10:17 PM |
| Tell me then, how much of it is man-made. Also, tell me how we convince China, the #1 producer of geenhouse gasses, to shut down half of their coal-fired power plants. Do we say "we'll go first, then you promise to follow?" I am still convinced that the whole global warming crusade is an anti-capitalism movement at its core. Back in the 1970's all the "experts" were warning us that we were heading towards another ice age. I'm all for reducing pollution and being environmentally responsible. But, I can't help but notice that all of the supposed solutions to global warming involve the developed world investing some of its wealth into the developing nations to help them catch up. The entire movement and most proposed solutions are inherently socialistic in nature. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 22 2008, 10:46 PM |
| http://grist.org/feature/2007/07/30/obama_factsheet/ |
| Posted by: Roids May 23 2008, 09:40 AM |
| None of that sounds bad, but he has some pretty aggressive long-term goals. Seems as if he's forgotten that he only gets to serve 4-8 years. Many of his ideas are by 2020, 2030, 2050, within 10-15 years, etc. That's what makes them sound hollow. He also fails to address the short-term problem of skyrocketing gas prices. The only way to solve the economic problems brought on by increasing gas prices and dependence on muslim oil is to expand our domestic supply (drilling in ANWAR and offshore drilling) while we work on his 20 year plans. But of course, that's not going to happen as long as he and his cohorts are bought and paid for by the enviro-lobby. |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 23 2008, 07:01 PM | ||
You think the Bush tax cuts are the only thing the Democrats will repeal? There are NUMEROUS taxes out there that end up hurting the middle class, all in the name of "equality" and bullshit stuff like global warming. Due to global warming, there is going to be many regulations (it's already started with the required gas mileage by 2020 in trucks), at which point the costs will be passed off to the consumer, which is you and me. They talk about taxing the shit out of the oil companies. We already have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world, how much higher does our government want it to go? And when they do tax ExxonMobil and oil even harder, who do you think is going to be paying for those lost profits? YOU AND ME, they'll just pass the costs off to us. This is why we needed Ron Paul in office. |
| Posted by: Roids May 23 2008, 08:23 PM | ||||
You're dead on Will. Too bad most people don't understand basic supply/demand economics. Most people don't even understand that what was done in congress the last two days with the oil execs was nothing more than a dog and pony show to make the democrat congress appears as if they were socking it to big oil. Notice how it brought fuel prices down? |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 23 2008, 10:11 PM |
| http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/23/1058450.aspx |
| Posted by: Roids May 23 2008, 10:13 PM |
| Stop with the posting links and running already! I love ya man, but speak your mind for cryin' out loud! |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 23 2008, 10:16 PM |
| "To try and offset roids...some pro-Obama links" I speak up plenty brutha, you know that. Just using this particular thread to provide info. Folks always say that Obama is all rhetoric, or that they don't know anything about him or his campaign, so I'm just putting a buncha stuff out there on a range of subjects strictly for the sake of informing. |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 24 2008, 02:24 AM | ||
Word, and I dig these Obama links because it helps me learn about him. That's the problem with most Americans, they don't know anything about the candidate, it's just another American Idol to them. If Mitt Romney was running, he would win on looks alone, because he has that Presidential feel and presence about him. Roids, you'd be surprised, but until September 2006 (or around there), I was a bleeding heart, typical college liberal, (you know how they are, I don't even need to explain, way left) but I started to read Jon Stossel's stuff, and started to become more Republican. I started using my brain, then started listening to Dennis Prager, and that's what really got me into conservatism (just not to the same degree as the religious nuts). Mark Levin is the man!! |
| Posted by: Roids May 24 2008, 10:06 AM | ||||
Werd. I like Glen Beck. Michael Savage is one of my faves also. Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity are the worst of the Bushbots IMO. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 24 2008, 12:31 PM |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tydfsfSQiYc |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 24 2008, 04:58 PM |
| http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_el_pr/obama_s_team |
| Posted by: Roids May 24 2008, 05:20 PM | ||
Yeah yeah!  I bet ole Bill Clinton is going through hell right now having to live with Hillary after all this. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 24 2008, 06:57 PM | ||||
You're probably right. You know he was all set to lounge in the White House for another 4-8 years. Oh well...http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4925145&page=1 |
| Posted by: Roids May 24 2008, 08:19 PM |
| You know she's prolly an emotional wreck right now. She's prolly screaming that this is all his fault and bringing up the whole Monica Lewinski thing again. I wonder if they'll even say married. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 27 2008, 07:23 PM |
| http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/27/1067357.aspx |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 28 2008, 12:54 AM |
| So are these superdelegates choosing based on the voters from their districts, or are they being the typical politician and playing favorites and choosing whom they think can win the White House? |
| Posted by: Roids May 28 2008, 07:43 AM | ||
|
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 28 2008, 09:13 AM | ||
If you were referring to the delegates he picked up in the link I previously posted (which you obviously didn't read) some were pledged delegates, re-apportioned from Alaska and Colorado, and the superdelegate he picked up yesterday was representing the will of her constituency. That is not to say that every superdelegate is voting with their districts, but that's your answer if you were referring to yesterday's delegate pickups. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/28/america/28obama-map.php |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 28 2008, 04:38 PM |
| I still don't understand how he is going to unite the two parties and get rid of special interests in Washington when he's the most liberal Senator. Special interests and lobbyists run Washington, not the people. |
| Posted by: Roids May 28 2008, 05:31 PM | ||
He's not. Every presidential candidtate is a "uniter". Bill Clinton was able to work with both sides fairly well, but that's because he pretty much went with wherever the political wind was blowing. He never really took a stand on anything. Basically because he didn't stand for anything but poll numbers. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 28 2008, 09:10 PM |
| http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/28/1072993.aspx |
| Posted by: Roids May 28 2008, 09:17 PM |
| No one gives a shit tree33. Oh shit! Sorry JW! |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 28 2008, 09:23 PM | ||
Just providing info about the candidate, news about the campaign, etc. Lots of folks say that Barack Obama is still "a relative unknown" so I'm just providing a little info. Plus, like the title of the thread says...."some pro-Obama links" .....you little ball buster |
| Posted by: Roids May 28 2008, 09:35 PM |
| Obama certainly isn't an unknown. He's our next greatest national blunder. NOBama 2008!!! |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 28 2008, 09:48 PM | ||
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=12890 |
| Posted by: Roids May 28 2008, 10:29 PM |
| McCain is not Bush by any stretch. He's another mistake. He's the republican that liberals can live with. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 28 2008, 11:40 PM |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqiBwsjAa2s |
| Posted by: Will109090 May 28 2008, 11:41 PM |
| That's another thing I don't like about the talk radio conservatives. They keep pimpin Iran like it's some huge threat, which it's not. Anyone with a little common fucking sense could easily deduct that if Iran were to attack the U.S. or Israel (our only ally left in the world due to this fucking mess we're in), it would be Hiroshima all over again. Ahdminejad has no say at all in the country's international and military affairs. |
| Posted by: Roids May 29 2008, 12:55 PM |
| http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24830677/ But, I still believe that it would be completely naive to assume that they have no desire to obtain a nuke. To most dictatorships, it means self preservation. By attacking Iraq, we basically sent out the message to all rogue govts that we won't attack you if you have nukes, so if you don't have them yet, you'd better hurry up. That being said, a nuk-lar armed Iran dominating the middle east would not be a good thing. Not only does the west not want it, but the idea scares the shit out of arab countries as well. |
| Posted by: ftank May 29 2008, 01:26 PM | ||
Agreed, Roids. Last time I checked, we weren't worried about Iran invading the US. We're worried about their funding of international terrorism. They've already acknowledged their support of certain radical groups. Let us not forget that their government is a religious, facist regime. The global economy revolves around petrochemicals -- not just oil, but PLASTIC, too. I'm typing on plastic to convey this message and perform my daily job routine. They are threatening sheikhs sitting on millions of gallons of oil, trafficking arms to Iraqi insurgents and Iran was developing nuclear technology until UN sanctions hit about four months ago. Should we be worried about Iran? |
| Posted by: Roids May 29 2008, 05:59 PM |
| I think we should do like Deng Xiaopeng said. Speak softly and carry a big stick. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops May 29 2008, 09:28 PM |
| http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/29/1078564.aspx |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops Jun 3 2008, 07:40 PM |
| http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24944453/ |
| Posted by: Michael218532 Jun 3 2008, 08:12 PM |
| finally |
| Posted by: Alan115396 Jun 3 2008, 08:15 PM |
McCain's mah knigg!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops Jun 3 2008, 08:26 PM |
| http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/19476319.html?location_refer=Most%20Emailed:Homepage |
| Posted by: Roids Jun 3 2008, 10:14 PM |
| The fact that a terribly flawed candidate like Barack Hussein Obama could get the nominatio is just further proof that it is all no more than an American Idol contest, with Obama being the coolest, hippest candidate. And, after 8 years of such a shitty administration, everyone is hungry for change, for better or for worse. There seems to be a pattern that extremes beget extremes. Clinton brought us Newt Gingrich, Bush brought us the train wreck that is the Pelosi Congress, and now he may also have paved the way for a marxist to become the next president. Good times! |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops Jun 3 2008, 10:18 PM |
| John McCain's middle name is Sidney...who knew? |
| Posted by: Will109090 Jun 3 2008, 10:28 PM |
| Roids, check out this article, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/13/if_on_the_wrong_track,_why_go_left |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops Jun 3 2008, 10:39 PM |
| http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ |
| Posted by: Will109090 Jun 4 2008, 12:13 AM |
| Okay, and how does he plan on funding health care for everyone in this country?? Sounds like his plan isn't any different from Hillary's plan. The reason health care is so fucked up and expensive in the first place is because of government intervention. And he thinks more government intervention will solve the problem? This is what I don't get. Whenever there is a supposed "problem" in the country, people always run to the government. Inflation is the #1 "tax" that is killing middle-class America, and what is it a result of? Bigger government. So why the hell would anyone want to move towards a larger government, which inevitably leads to more government regulation, which leads to higher taxes? Like Dennis Prager said, the European countries that were adopting socialist policies were going bankrupt and robbing their citizens of their incomes by levying heavy taxes, resulting in masses of people migrating to neighboring countries with more conservative leaders. What happened to these socialist countries? They started to lose LOTS of money, thus citizens started electing more conservative leaders, thus lowering taxes. They are in much better shape than they were just 5 years ago. |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops Jun 11 2008, 09:35 PM |
| http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25096620/ Very early (obviously) but a good article about how some of the different demographics are breaking down and what challenges both candidates face in November. |
| Posted by: Roids Jun 12 2008, 11:02 AM |
| It's definitely gonna be a close one for sure. Oh well, may the best democrat win this time. McCain is basically a democrat who supports the Iraq war and was against the tax cuts before he was for them. It's hard for most any conservative to get excited about him. |
| Posted by: Tswole Jun 12 2008, 11:47 AM |
| big problem with the universal health care ideas is that: it screws the Dr's income off the bat The D students will get the same cash as the A students so where is the insentive to go over and beyond. moral will lower and the quality of healthcare will surely decline. it wont matter how good of a job you will do, you get the same cash either way, if you do a great surgery or one with complications or reprocussions. Its like giving a flat 40k salary to all salesmen on the car lot...no iniative to do better. do you obama-bots see that? |
| Posted by: Tswole Jun 12 2008, 11:52 AM |
| i guess political experience doesnt matter to many of you either. When picking a basketball team would you rather have Kobe or kwame brown, Hoops? |
| Posted by: Tswole Jun 12 2008, 12:08 PM |
| i dont know all the true underlying methods of improvement if any but i dont thing obama can improve on it with his inexperience. |
| Posted by: Will109090 Jun 13 2008, 02:38 AM |
| Universal healthcare WILL fail in this country, if it's enacted. There will be no reason for doctors to perform well and go beyond the call of duty, because all of their salaries will be the same! So Dr. 90210 who performs amazing plastic surgeries on fake ass bitches in LA will be getting the same salary as some plastics in Montana. It's such bullshit. And in the end, all of our taxes will increase big time if universal healthcare is enacted, thus you'll end up paying more anyways than if a free-market system was in place. Go take a flight over to England and check out their gas prices. Want to know why they pay $8+/gallon? High taxes due to the HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!! And now, they have to fund all of these social programs because of all of the BOMBS AND NINJAS migrating there from the ME shithole! |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops Jun 13 2008, 09:08 AM |
| http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080613/pl_politico/11045 |
| Posted by: JW32Hoops Jun 13 2008, 09:31 AM | ||
I'd rather have Dwight Howard than Dikembe Mutombo http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25133125/ |
| Posted by: Roids Jun 13 2008, 09:58 AM |
| Political experience doesn't matter a whole lot IMO. Rumsfeld and Cheney had decades of experience and were evil bastards who caused problems that this country will take decades to recover from. In the banking world, we talk a lot about people who have 20 years of experience vs some people who have about two years of experience ten times over. Some people continuously learn and excel over the years and some people get in, hunker down, and don't learn or improve with experience. Obama may be the smartest candidate (or at least the best spoken), but he's also so far to the left that he might as well be running for president of Cuba. As the campaign unfolds, he will likely be called to task for both his voting record and his hollow plans for future energy policy. McCain may very well be a more formidable opponent for Barrack Hussein Obama than he seems right now. |
| Posted by: Lorken Jun 13 2008, 04:34 PM |
| Not sure if this point was made--I didn't read the whole thread--but Obama's only accomplishment is becoming the presumptive presidential nominee with next to NO experience whatsoever. Most of his 3 (?) years in the senate were spent campaigning for the presidency! Is that qualification enough to hold the most powerful position in the world? This isn't American Idol, America! |
| Posted by: Roids Jun 14 2008, 11:48 AM |
| Lorken, are you saying you don't want change?? You don't want hope?? This is real change we can believe in! He's going to reform politics as we know it. He's going to get us back on the path to prosperity. He'll fight poverty, climate change, and solve our energy problems. He's just not going to bore us with the details, that's all. Otherwise, this is historic stuff that's taking place. Get on board man!!! |
| Posted by: Roids Jun 14 2008, 11:52 AM |
| Speaking of double talk express: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_1jqmURn9M If we were about 10 years down the road, I could prolly find more Obama contradictions. But, being so new and inexperienced, frankly there's not much out there. |