OT: scuttled by the sceptics.

Page 5 of 7  


I'll bite, what fighting do you think he did? Lou
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mithrandir wrote:

His name may be "Jeremiah", but he's no Old Testament prophet. He is a plain old race baiting bigot with a big cash flow from his Faithful, and a highly visible parishioner in his pew the last 20 years who appears to have been deaf.

Oh yawn. The Poor Downtrodden Victim Society rears it tired head. Wright was not reciting 2 century old history. He was accusing the nation - at this time - of being just as bad. He is a malignancy on the culture, a bigot to his bones, and a caricature of a pastor. He has many fellow travelers, notably the "Reverends" Jackson and Sharpton. All three of these guys are Victim pimps, no more.

You either don't live here in the area or are utterly disconnected from reality. Wright *is* rich, thanks to his flock giving large sums of money to him. So is Obama. These guys have less in common with urban poor blacks than I do - and I'm as white as a ghost. They do what the far left liberals always do to the poor: condescend to them. I know this because - unlike Hussein Obama - I've *been* poor. Obama is a political carpetbagger and Wright is a fraud.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So you're saying that the only ones who can legitimately work for the rights of the poor are people who are poor themselves? That *is* disconnected from reality.
I would like to see you back up all your name-calling with a list of verifiable actions that Obama has taken, either during his years as a community organizer, or in the IL legislature, or in the US Senate, that justify the names you sling.
Mithrandir
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mithrandir wrote:

No, I'm saying that rich liberals like Obama keep the their pet poor around to appear to be benificient but they are no such thing. Obama's activism isn't rooted in attracting business into poor neighboorhoods, he's already demonstrated an antipathy towards business in his comments about oil companies. His activism is built on the premise that the poor are victims, that their condition is not their fault, and that everyone else owes them something. The truth is that without a permanent working poor underclass and below, the liberal Democrats would have no compelling voting base, or at least not enough of one to get elected to anything above dog catcher. They *need* to keep the poor in their place, or replace them with new imported poverty to keep a permanent begging class in place to vote for them. It sounds harsh, but work with almost anyone who has *worked* their way up from poverty and you will generally find a fairly low level of respect for the Obamas of this world.
Furthermore, "the rights of the poor" he "works" for are nothing more than a socialist wealth redistribution system. The "rights" he claims for them exist in no founding document of the US, nor are they even natural rights. He is however, strangely silent about the *sins* of the poor.
For example, you NEVER hear him (or Jackson or Sharpton) calling their own communities to "repentance" - to stop behaving in the violent, disgusting, and abusive manner that causes most of the poverty they experience. Instead Obama questions the incarceration rates of blacks vs. everyone else with the not too veiled message that it's really racist at the core. (He should read this: http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-04-02hm.html ) But this is no surprise ... he went to a racist church, which at the time was run by a Race Victimhood Pimp masquerading as a minister of God. Not much different than the Iranian Ayatollahs now that I think about it.

We don't have to go that far back. Let's just stick to his most recent history:
Let's begin with lies, exaggerations, and taking all sides of issues:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/obamas_profile_in_exaggeration.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/the_obama_change_we_really_can.html
Then there's his basic lack factual knowledge:
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/09/obama-wants-to-be-president-of-57-states /
McCain gets abused for not remembering the differences between Sunni and Shia halfway around the word. Obama doesn't know what his own country looks like ... and he's about 30 years *younger* than McCain. That has to be more than just "I was tired." (I bet Obama can recite the 7 Pillars Of Islam from memory though, but thats a guess on my part.)
Then there is the considerable body of evidence connecting him, at least indirectly, with political crooks and outright thugs. Google the following three names together: rezko obama blagojevich The latter is the malodorous governor of our state and is #1 on the FBI investigation hit parade at the moment. The corruption in this state runs deep AND wide. It sure looks like - though not yet proven - that Obama was part of it. There is enough incidental evidence that he has an ethics problem that I do not think he merits being elected or even considered for the highest office of the land. But ... he's a far left Democrat and - as we've seen repeatedly - they are above the law far more so than anything Bush and his bunch could invent.
Then there's the matter of attending a church - for 20 or so years - where the pastor is virulent racist but Obama never hear a word.
I have no idea what kind of a person Obama is personally. He may well be a fine husband and father. But he is an atrocious political candidate who actually makes Hillary look good (which I thought to be impossible). He has major league warts, no record of positive accomplishment (other than feeding at the public trough to get the rest of us to pick of the tab for the highly dysfunctional inner city community he claims to be "helping"), and only distanced himself from the bigoted snakeoil of Wright when he had absolutely no other choice.
The Dems could do better. They could do WAY better - Lieberman leaps to mind. Even our friend Gore-bie would be better - and he'd probably beat anyone in this field in a walk. But because the nutcase Left has hijacked the Dems far more effectively than the Right has been hijacked by its religious base, the Dems keep going to the bottom of the barrel for their candidates. I cannot abide McCain's political positions for the most part, but I hope he just clobbers Obama in the Nov. general election - it is exactly the reality check the Dems need...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

God Help US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No wonder he's ahead of Clinton. He's been campaigning in seven more states than she.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

that were never cast.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You go Tim! There is a reason that it's called "Crook" County!
I've said it all along BO is a Chicago politician. So by DEFINITION, there is stink on him somewhere. It may take a while to find, but let there be no doubt, it is there!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:25:18 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

And I used to live in Chicago. The fact that Illinois, and especially Chicago, politicians are crooked surprises you? And by extrapolation and experience, everywhere else as well :-).
The trick is to vote for the crook who will do the least harm for the country and the most good for you.
Me, I prefer someone who knows a Shiite from a Sunni. McCain is beginning to remind me of a Bush/Stockdale hybrid.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Uh, mind your manners. Stockdale was beaten as or even more severely than McCain in Viet Nam. His apparent slowness and poor speech patterns were a direct result.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Perhaps. but if so, delayed.
Sometime ago CNN played a recording of Stockdale, taped several years before he hooked up with Perot, in which he described being shot down and his first several months as a POW. He sounded pretty normal at that time.
In addition to his injuries from ejection, the civilians who captured him beat him badly until the militia called them off. One knee was injured so badly he was afraid he would lose the leg. He said that it had been the experience of the French that the Communists did not repatriate amputees (since then I've often wondered why) so that if he lost the leg he was as good as dead. Being one of the very first Americans captured by the North Vietnamese hr was treated as a sort of novelty and his leg was saved by a series of operations, he thought surgeons who worked on him were top notch.
As the war progressed, that changed dramatically for the worse, for himself as well as those captured later.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Toss into that had of wishes a president that recalls correctly if he or SHE was shot at during a ME visit and or a president that knows that the people in Afghanistan don't speed Arabic. Thank you Hillary and Obama respectively.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Okay, let's say that's true. So then you must be planning on voting for him given that you've just said the alternatives are so lousy, right?

Do you hold all candidates to the same standard? Did you recoil from the Republicans when that carpet-chewing nutball Pat Robertson's organization worked so closely with Republicans that the Federal Election Commission sued him over it? Do you lose sleep over the fact that McCain's wife's father did business with the mob? Should we be troubled that Mike Huckabee was pastor of a church that didn't admit black members until the 1980s? Or are embarrassing associations a problem only with candidates you already dislike?

Sure, that's how he's come from behind to whomp Hillary, because he looks better in a suit, that's some real insightful analysis on your part.

Wait, you've already described the other candidates as being so lousy they make Obama look good, but now you'd rather he didn't win. I'm having trouble following your logic here, unless what it really comes down to is there isn't much logic involved.

For the most part I liked Reagan, alas, even if he were alive the Constitution would prohibit him from becoming President again. Of course given that the current administration doesn't find the Constitution a barrier to doing what they want maybe we shouldn't care too much what that document says.

Explain what's real about a supposed libertarian who fought like a hungry dog for the govt. to go on spending billions on a failed war on drugs and used every trick in the books to enable the feds to ignore the voters of states who approved medical marijuana laws? Oh yeah, he's changed his tune *now* since he'd like to get elected again one day and his medical marijuana stance already helped cost him his seat in Congress. I'm also curious about how such a staunch anti-abortionist as Barr agreed to his own wife having an abortion. And how about his refusal to testify about his extra-marital affair during his divorce proceedings, kind of odd for a guy who was a front-runner in the Clinton impeachment effort. He's now on wife number three but he backed the Defense of Marriage Act 'cause he figures gay marriage would harm the nation, now that's funny.
Hey, as a rule I think liberal politicians are every bit as crooked, manipulative and hypocritical as conservative politicians; historically I'm a conservative voter. But if Barr is your idea of the Real Deal then I have to wonder what color the sky is on your planet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

No. I plan to vote for Ronald Reagan who - even dead - is better than any of the above. I want to register my disdain for the choices the mainstream parties have given me. We desperately need a "None Of The Above" voting choice on our ballots. If more than 33% of the people who voted, select that option, the election should be invalid and require a "do over". I favor a Constitutional Amendment to make this so.

Yes.
Cite please.

We should be more than troubled, we should be outraged.

I am consistent in this. The stink is everywhere in politics.

He has NO CONTENT to his speeches. "Change you can believe in?" C'mon? What change? From what TO what and WHY? How will we pay for it? He is capitalizing on the boneheaded anti-war sentiment currently in vogue and the fact that Hillary both did support the war and won't completely back away from it. So I guess there is one policy point he can exploit. But he is an empty vessel, with nothing meaningful to say other than "change, change, change."

That doesn't actually *make* him better, it's a public perception thing.

What is comes down to is that *all* the candidates are lousy and he is *perceived* as being better than the alternatives. I don't share that view, but I understand that is *is* the dominant view. In my opinion he is the most dangerous of the bunch because he has no specific ideas but a strong affiliation to the general ideation of the extreme Left.

Don't just blame Bush for that. The rules by which W plays were put in place LONG before he was even in politics. It was, you'll recall, the activist political left, that decided the Constitution was a "living" document to be interpreted as necessary to fit current conditions. That's all Bush is doing ... he's just not doing it the way the left elite snobs would like.

Note that I said "appears". I've not had time to dig into his record deeply yet. If it turns out that you're record is correct I will never vote for him.

Again, I just saw him announce, and I've not examined the details for myself. I'm with you. I don't mind people changing their minds on principle. I mind people using the force of government to tell me what to do.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Seems like a pointless gesture.

That could lead to no administration for years on end, as bad as the govt. often is that could certainly be worse.

He was a beer distributor in Arizona who took some legal hits in court over filing falsified paperwork and concealing who he was doing business with which at that time in that place meant guys with mob ties. It's nothing you need to bother looking up unless you like spending time on right-wingnut *and* left-wingnut websites, for some reason both fringes think it's something they can smear McCain with. I fail to see what it has to do with McCain, if belonging to a family (in his case just by marriage) that did business with mobsters was disqualifying then the Kennedys should never have got anywhere in politics.

On that we are agreed.

Ron Paul says good government is more important than just having a Republican in the White House and he thinks Obama would be better on foreign policy than the others. Do you think you have this figured out better than Paul? Hey, I don't think he's the answer to a maiden's prayer, but I'd sure rather have him than Hillary. However I don't think he can beat McCain, I suspect we're looking at McCain in the White House next year with a Democrat Congress, that should be big fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNOpdE2Z0Ss


"Boneheaded?" Thousands of dead American soldiers (and many more Iraqis), hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, the contempt of most of the world including allies, an economy in the toilet, massive national debt (much of it held by China), no WMDs found, the Army and the Marines stretched to the breaking point--exactly what part of the invasion of Iraq do you think shouldn't be inspiring anti-war sentiment? "Currently in vogue," since when is an unjustified and incompetently executed war something that shouldn't be unpopular? I come from a family with a long history of military service, I recognize that some wars are necessary, the invasion of Afghanistan for example was justified as an organization that actually did attack America was based there. But the justification for invading Iraq was all smoke and mirrors, the invasion has turned out to be the worst foreign policy blunder in decades. Do you have kids? They'll be paying for this until they're old and grey, how happy do you think they'll be about that?

You and some friends are marching into a swamp infested with alligators and poison snakes, the slimy water is up to your chin, your feet keep getting stuck in the mud and it kind of looks like soon you won't be able to move at all. Somebody suggests changing course and not marching straight into the swamp any more. Is your response going to be that since they didn't specify an exact direction you're not going to listen to them?
I don't know if Obama as President will be better, but it's unlikely he could be any worse. I almost don't care at this point, the Bush admin has been such a flaming shambles that I'm prepared to let almost anyone have a crack at doing better, it's too bad Pat Paulsen isn't running.

The extreme left huh? Specifics? What is there in his legislative history that leads you to believe he's really a lot more radical than most folks think? His kid does go to school with the child of a guy who used to be in the Weather Underground, and there's that photo of him not putting his hand over his heart for the National Anthem, that's pretty damning stuff for sure.

Ah, so your excuse is that because some other kids stole candy too you shouldn't be blamed for doing it as well, lovely.
Warrantless wiretaps? Secret trials? Citizens declared to be enemy combatants without due process? We're supposed to just let that stuff go because of what some previous administrations did?

You won't have to dig far, his history is right there for anyone to find with a quick web search.

It is sometimes necessary for the common good, we need traffic laws because without them the streets would be a madhouse. For that matter we need the streets too, if they were built only in neighborhoods where the residents could afford them half the country would still be in the 18th century. For that matter some of it still is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

Almost 10x that number of Americans die *annually* on our highways. Why are you not similarly exorcised about this and demanding the dismantlement of this very dangerous environment. It is terrible that people die in war, combatants and civilians. But the Iraq war demonstrates again the trend that each major war the US fights, the death toll goes down (but the injury survival toll goes up). Moreover, every single solider *volunteered* to serve. We no longer practice the slavery of the draft.

Nowhere near what we waste on anti-Constitutional entitlements to keep loafers loafing.

The debt is much more an artifact of the entitlement spend than it is military spend, even with the increased cost of the Iraq war. Go look at any recent budget. Figure out what was spent on military and what was spent on entitlements. Then pro rate the interest paid on the debt accordingly.

The part about thwarting threat in the region before it gets out of control. I'm with you - we should not be *there* - we should have rained pain on the Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian governments by wiping out their military capacity, public works, and government facilities by air. Cripple their economies, throw them into complete turmoil so they have no energy for nukes, funding Hezbollah, attacking Israel, etc. We don't need boots on the ground there, just cut them off at their knees. Cheap, effective, and sustainable.

The war was not incompetently executed. The peace was, thanks in part to the drooling idiots in the State department that insisted we stay and fix things. Bush is dead wrong on this too. If we were going in, it should have been to "visit" and he should have stuck by "Mission Accomplished."

My kids are going to be paying far, far, far, far more for the foolish and greedy demands of healthcare, drug benefits, Social Security, and Medicare that are not funded at anywhere near the levels needed to sustain my lazy, money grubbing, unethical generation that is headed for retirement in a little while.

Of course I will .. but I want to know just WHAT I'm signing up for.

He was entertaining. I'd personally like to see Kinky Friedman run.

How about his attacks on big eeeeeevil corporations making "too much" money?
How about his acknowledgment that reducing taxes stimulates the economy, but he wants tax rates raised anyway to be more "fair" (as he defines it)?
How about his support for *increasing* foreign aid to suit the UN?
He is far left issue after issue.

No. I think *some* of what W did was wrong and he got remediated by SCOTUS. I think some of what he did was controversial, but not obviously wrong. But it is hilarious to watch the lefties pee themselves because Bush is doing *exactly* what they want to do all the time: "interpreting" the Constitution for "our time". I was merely commenting on this irony.

Permitted under FISA. But FISA could not work due to the paperwork burden. Where were the Dems to help find a workable alternative? Standing across the street throwing rocks and complaining (as usual).
Secret trials?
There is a long and standing precedent for this during wartime.
Citizens declared to be enemy

Utterly wrong. He's a bozo on this one.
We're supposed to just let that stuff go

No, we're supposed to fight back on principle. Unfortunately, neither the right nor the left have any principles any more, so what do you expect?

"Common Good" is the biggest code phrase for collectivism ever devised ... well, that and "What About The Children?". Government force should be limited to: Defending the nation, and interdicting when citizens heap force, fraud, or threat upon each other.
P.S. "The streets" are one of the enumerated powers given the Federal government in the Constitution because they are "post roads." No foul there.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:51:44 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

And twice as many people are killed each year by the wrong medication as were killed in 9/11. Those two events certainly don't get the same response :-).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A Dutchman and a Russkie were arguing one day and came up with this:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 16:49:44 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

Tom Watson tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Watson wrote:

You are a very hurtful man. I am Ukrainian (a Slav) not Russian (of more-or-less Finnish blood lines, I am told). My people are professional victims, theirs are professional predators. We have hot women. They have great vodka.
Robatoy is Dutch? That's kind of shocking actually...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.