PDA

View Full Version : America can relax and breathe a huge sigh of relief



Mobilus
11-04-2008, 11:10 PM
Even if Obama does NOTHING good:


There will be no war with Iran

The Military Commissions Act, which was ruled unconstitutional, will not be enforced because John McCain would have done it anyway

The Iraq War will not continue to bleed hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have

Congress will not be able to renew the copyrights on alternate energy that the oil companies own, like the NiMH battery used in the 1997 Toyota EV Rav-4.

The Patriot Act will not be renewed

The Wiretap Bill will not be renewed

There will be no two-tiered internet

The Presidency will no longer instruct the EPA not to enforce the Clean Water and Clean Air acts the way Bush has done





ALL OF THAT IS A FREEBIE. OBAMA DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AND WE GET ALL THAT.



Now:

Now that the election is over I can say a big "**** YOU MIDDLE AMERICA" that was kind of impotent 4 years ago.
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/seattle/images/2004/11/242943.jpg



Also, Obama can stop pretending he isn't a socialist and soon we will have free, nationalized health-care for everyone the same way that police and fire departments are free for anyone who needs them. And yes, your healthcare will be just as good if not better.

Oil companies know the end is near. That is why they reaped their largest profit in history last quarter while the economy DIED. You should all expect Obama to outlaw the production of new combustion engines by 2010 and electric cars to come out NEXT YEAR.

Otaku
11-04-2008, 11:18 PM
Let's hope so. I really feel great tonight.

lpxxfaintxx
11-04-2008, 11:23 PM
Today was a great day in American history.

putis
11-05-2008, 05:51 AM
Even if Obama does NOTHING good:


There will be no war with Iran

The Military Commissions Act, which was ruled unconstitutional, will not be enforced because John McCain would have done it anyway

The Iraq War will not continue to bleed hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have

Congress will not be able to renew the copyrights on alternate energy that the oil companies own, like the NiMH battery used in the 1997 Toyota EV Rav-4.

The Patriot Act will not be renewed

The Wiretap Bill will not be renewed

There will be no two-tiered internet

The Presidency will no longer instruct the EPA not to enforce the Clean Water and Clean Air acts the way Bush has done





ALL OF THAT IS A FREEBIE. OBAMA DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AND WE GET ALL THAT.



Now:

Now that the election is over I can say a big "**** YOU MIDDLE AMERICA" that was kind of impotent 4 years ago.




Also, Obama can stop pretending he isn't a socialist and soon we will have free, nationalized health-care for everyone the same way that police and fire departments are free for anyone who needs them. And yes, your healthcare will be just as good if not better.

Oil companies know the end is near. That is why they reaped their largest profit in history last quarter while the economy DIED. You should all expect Obama to outlaw the production of new combustion engines by 2010 and electric cars to come out NEXT YEAR.


:wub:

What a relief.

Deg™
11-05-2008, 06:45 AM
RIP America: Land of the free, home of the brave.

1776 - 2008

"Although the election map painted you blue, you've never looked so red..."

lpxxfaintxx
11-05-2008, 06:47 AM
:lol: Whatever deg, let's just see in 4 years.

CrazyGerbilEater
11-05-2008, 09:21 AM
may the 4 years pass swiftly, and the next election elect Ron Paul.

god i hate obama, may everything he wishes to enact be turned down, in fact if he does absolutly nothing, I would be happy.

Perma
11-05-2008, 09:42 AM
...free, nationalized health-care for everyone the same way that police and fire departments are free for anyone who needs them. And yes, your healthcare will be just as good if not better.

As one of your neighbors to the north who already embrace this system, I can tell you that it is neither free nor better. It's certainly less expensive than your current system, though, but that is countered by higher taxes and medical services bills yearly.

You're not going to pay when you go visit the hospital, but you're going to pay for medical whether you use it or not. One advantage, though, is that the more money you end up spending on medical care in a year, the more of your medication the government pays for. For example, the medication I take to control Crohn's disease is $120 for a 30 day supply. By the time April rolled around I was only paying $40, and now I'm paying $8. Last year in December I got three bottles (90 day supply) for $1.95. Not sure if there is a similar system already in place in the US.

Deg™
11-05-2008, 09:46 AM
As one of your neighbors to the north who already embrace this system, I can tell you that it is neither free nor better. It's certainly less expensive than your current system, though, but that is countered by higher taxes and medical services bills yearly.

Also the lack of punctual service, and massive waiting lists; so i hear from my cousins in BC.

Perma
11-05-2008, 09:49 AM
Also the lack of punctual service, and massive waiting lists; so i hear from my cousins in BC.

Yeah, surgery waiting lists (even very pressing ones) can take months or even years. And waiting in a hospital, well... I waited for eight hours to get a prescription filled. This is mostly due to being understaffed because a government subsidized healthcare system doesn't pay as well as a private one.

Mobilus
11-05-2008, 12:42 PM
How many times do I have to say this?

A socialized healthcare industry in America will look NOTHING like Canada's. That's because we already have enough doctors so there will be no waiting lists.

Also, doctors will be paid the same AND we will lower costs. How? By completely getting rid of the absurd for-profit accounting industry known as "health insurance" which makes money off of denying care to people.

And even if there were waiting lists, the solution to that is to let capitalism turn healthcare into a commodity that some people can't afford. EVERYONE should have access to healthcare.

When fire-fighters or police show up at your house they don't ask for payment before they put out a fire or arrest a burglar....

MiCrOz
11-05-2008, 12:44 PM
Hey, either way, it's been a LONG 8 years, so lets just see how this all goes before the bashing begins.

Deg™
11-05-2008, 12:49 PM
No, i chose to be indignant like those liberal ****s were in 2000.

IversonAli3
11-05-2008, 01:33 PM
The Patriot Act will not be renewed

The Wiretap Bill will not be renewed
:clap:

Were just going to have to wait and see how this turns out. I personally dont agree with a lot of Obamas domestic policies, he'll do well in the foreign spectrum due to the fact that it really cant get worse than it currently is.

He'll follow the party policy regarding the priority of civil liberties over all else, including national security. He has my support simply for this reason.

Perma
11-05-2008, 01:37 PM
How many times do I have to say this?

A socialized healthcare industry in America will look NOTHING like Canada's. That's because we already have enough doctors so there will be no waiting lists.

You have a lot of doctors because your privatized healthcare system pays better wages, thus attracting more doctors. Your waiting lists are cut down because of the cost to perform surgery. When this becomes an option for everyone who is in need of it, the amount of people on said waiting lists will increase exponentially.


Also, doctors will be paid the same AND we will lower costs. How? By completely getting rid of the absurd for-profit accounting industry known as "health insurance" which makes money off of denying care to people.

No, doctors will not always be paid the same because there will be less money for healthcare, and your taxes will go up because the money for a socialized healthcare system needs to be drawn from somewhere. Your health insurance will still exist, but most likely in the form of the medical services plan we see here in Canada.

There's no doubt that you'll be better off under a socialized system than you are now, but you can't just think that it's the answer to healthcare problems because it isn't. Besides, quite frankly, at this point in time the US can't really afford to pour the billions needed into socialized healthcare.

Aiur
11-05-2008, 01:47 PM
The Patriot Act will not be renewed

The Wiretap Bill will not be renewed

Hooray! My privacy will stay intact (sort of). Let's see how the next four years will turn out.

Raistlin
11-05-2008, 02:26 PM
This is a disturbing time for America. It would have been sad if John Kerry had won in 2004. But this is far from sad, it's honestly disturbing. In a crucial time both economically and militarily, we now have:

1) The most blatantly unqualified president in history.
2) The first Socialist president, both in terms of policy and documented affiliation.
3) A president so unscrupulous that he owns a mansion bought with the help of a criminal slumlord.
4) A president who was mentored in high school by a Communist.
5) A president whose instinct in college was to seek out the Marxists.
6) A president who followed an openly racist belief system for twenty years and called its leader his mentor.
7) A president whose political career was launched and fostered by an unrepentant domestic terrorist who hates capitalism.
8) A president who paid almost a million dollars for fraudulent voter registrations and lied about where the money was going and what it was for.
9) A president who is visibly soft on foreign policy and who surrounds himself with advisors who are hostile towards Israel.
10) A president who opposed the troop surge that helped us win in Iraq and wanted to surrender and pull out in defeat.
11) A president who is going to (this is according to the man himself) take our ICBMs offline, not weaponize space, scale down our nuclear armaments, not build new nukes as the old ones atrophy, give rogue leaders a diplomatic propoganda platform, cut all missile defense systems, slow the development of all combat systems, and not produce fissile material. This is the same man who wanted us to surrender in Iraq when we had never lost a single battle. It's pathetic when we as Americans have become so oblivious that we can not recognize our enemies' Christmas wish list when we hear it read aloud.
12) A president who was unable to prove his citizenship but was elected anyway.
13) A president who used every tool available to him during his candidacy to silence free speech, and is now in control of much greater tools like the intelligence apparatus, the IRS, and the military, and now is even talking about forming his own Obama army that would equal the power of the military.
14) A president who only would have won literally 15-20% of the vote if the American people had possessed factual knowledge of his history and alliances, and who actively concealed his history and alliances for that reason.

That's a lot of firsts for America. Oh, but he is America's first black president. How inspiring.

CrazyGerbilEater
11-05-2008, 02:28 PM
its in the hospitals best interest to provide healthcare to everyone and often, as thats how they make money. The fact you have to be a licensed doctor to perform medicine gives them a monopoly, so they can charge what they want and theres nowhere for you to go. interfereing with the markets screw them up. and since we interfere with our markets ALL the time, its pretty screwed up. we don't give it a chance to recover.

i for one am against having the highest taxes in the world, we have one of the lowest, and its great. we just need to get more competitive markets to drive price down, or non-licensed doctors like doctor nick to take care of us for cheap.

Dyndrilliac
11-05-2008, 03:56 PM
You have a lot of doctors because your privatized healthcare system pays better wages, thus attracting more doctors.Tell that to the people who go to medical school and don't have rich parents to pay for it. Most new doctors end up being in debt for over a hundred thousand dollars due to student loans and then working in hospitals where they make less than an ugly waitress in a truck stop waffle house for a few years before they have a chance to make any real money.

@Raistlin: Don't be a poor sport because GOP FUD finally failed to win the day. And speaking just on the basis of all the traditionally red states that Obama carried, I would say that many people disagree with you. It isn't the end of the world. And, on the bright side, if he does do poorly there is always next election, although personally I think he is going to be a huge improvement over Bush.

Belphegor
11-05-2008, 04:00 PM
No, doctors will not always be paid the same because there will be less money for healthcare, and your taxes will go up because the money for a socialized healthcare system needs to be drawn from somewhere. Your health insurance will still exist, but most likely in the form of the medical services plan we see here in Canada.Actually, we recieve all the negatives of socialism in the form of taxes, and receive no benefits from it. For example, that 840$Billion dollar pork bill you heard us whining about, comes from the middle class pockets, to fatten back up the rich. All because they gave they're money away, to people who don't have disposable incomes to pay it back. Where if we spent a mere % of that, such as 300$Billion, we could of repaved EVERY road in America(alleyways, highways, dirt roads), fixed every bridge, and supplied healthcare for every American citizen. Also, the amount we're spending on Iraq is more money then was spent on the medical system in the last 200 years.

Raistlin
11-05-2008, 04:02 PM
@Raistlin: Don't be a poor sport

I couldn't be more serious. Maybe you don't give a **** about Democracy, but I do.


And speaking just on the basis of all the traditionally red states that Obama carried, I would say that many people disagree with you.

I only stated facts. You can't disagree with facts - you can only be ignorant of them.

And whose job is it to inform the public of facts? This is visible evidence of the media's complicity in electing an anti-American socialist because he has a (D) next to his name, and I'm not sure what value it has in the context of your argument.

BLeH
11-05-2008, 04:28 PM
I was pleasantly surprised with the right-wing republican parties acceptance in their humility of their own defeat. You're probably the soorest loser i've seen on the right side so.

The media elected obama?

Why are you assuming everyone in america are a bunch of lazy inarticulate morons who are incapable of doing the research you have without reaching different conclusion and having a different opinion? The evidence we do have suggests that voters were well aware of jeremiah wright and bill ayers when they responded in polls, they just didn't give a **** or think that it was worth voting on.

I'm sorry but trying to dismiss the way your candidate got his ass kicked as an ignorant electorate, or a media conspiracy is being a sore loser. It's almost as pathetic as the hysteria that followed the 2000 and 2004 elections in far left circles who were unable to wrap their heads around the fact most people in the country disagreed with them at the time.

Raistlin
11-05-2008, 04:47 PM
Why are you assuming everyone in america are a bunch of lazy inarticulate morons who are incapable of doing the research you have without reaching different conclusion and having a different opinion?

I didn't say "everyone", but to the point, this isn't an assumption, it's a fact. If you put the facts regarding his history down on a sheet of paper, and asked people without mentioning the brand-name "Obama" whether a person that fit this description should be president, I guarantee you it would be 20% or less positive.


The evidence we do have suggests that voters were well aware of jeremiah wright and bill ayers when they responded in polls, they just didn't give a **** or think that it was worth voting on.

Were they aware of Wright, or were they aware that Wright was Obama's mentor? Were they aware of Ayers, or were they aware that Ayers launched Obama's career? Were they aware of Tony Rezko? Were they aware of Raila Odinga? Were they aware of Frank Marshall Davis? Were they aware of ACORN? Were they aware of the socialist New Party? Were they aware of Rashid Khalidi? Were they aware of Marilyn Katz?

So no, people didn't know about Obama. You yourself just argued in another thread about whether Obama is allied with these people, so you yourself didn't know. And it was the press's job to tell you. You were manipulated, along with millions of other Americans.

Belphegor
11-05-2008, 04:51 PM
He is right, because it is now a socialist party. Barack Obama did not win this election due to the Democrats. He won it as Barack Obama, yes he had they're support. But not they're traditional methods or funding. He did many more things then your list found on this forum of firsts, that allowed him to win this election, that no other candidates in history have done. To this, I say congratulations.

BLeH
11-05-2008, 04:55 PM
So no, people didn't know about Obama. You yourself just argued in another thread about whether Obama is allied with these people, so you yourself didn't know. And it was the press's job to tell you. You were manipulated, along with millions of other Americans.

Actually i'm thinking you've been the one manipulated.

The only person people have to blame for not knowing enough about the candidates is themselves not the media. I don't rely on the media to give me my information or form my opinions. If you do, then thats your bad because there really is an unlimited amount of outside sources and resources to use to inform yourself.

Mobilus
11-05-2008, 05:12 PM
I didn't say "everyone", but to the point, this isn't an assumption, it's a fact. If you put the facts regarding his history down on a sheet of paper, and asked people without mentioning the brand-name "Obama" whether a person that fit this description should be president, I guarantee you it would be 20% or less positive.



Were they aware of Wright, or were they aware that Wright was Obama's mentor? Were they aware of Ayers, or were they aware that Ayers launched Obama's career? Were they aware of Tony Rezko? Were they aware of Raila Odinga? Were they aware of Frank Marshall Davis? Were they aware of ACORN? Were they aware of the socialist New Party? Were they aware of Rashid Khalidi? Were they aware of Marilyn Katz?

So no, people didn't know about Obama. You yourself just argued in another thread about whether Obama is allied with these people, so you yourself didn't know. And it was the press's job to tell you. You were manipulated, along with millions of other Americans.

You're wrong. People were obviously aware and didn't care. They saw what major damage McCain was about to cause and they made a mathematical decision that Obama would be less harmful. You can disagree with that all you want but clearly 52% of Americans and 350+ electoral votes didn't think Ayers or Wright or Rezko disqualifies Obama for being President.

Therefore your BS argument about 20% or less is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.

NickF
11-05-2008, 06:13 PM
Oh how bitter sweet. Goodbye war(maybe), hello socialism and high taxes.

BLeH
11-05-2008, 06:44 PM
I didn't say "everyone", but to the point, this isn't an assumption, it's a fact. If you put the facts regarding his history down on a sheet of paper, and asked people without mentioning the brand-name "Obama" whether a person that fit this description should be president, I guarantee you it would be 20% or less positive.


Actually you have everything exactly wrong. According to Gallup and ABC polls not only were nearly all voters aware of the William Ayers and his time with Obama, but a majority actually felt that trying to make the ayers association an issue against Barack in the election actually reflected negatively on the McCain campaign. Like I said this thing is really a boomerang tactic that employs guilt by association and stinks of desperation. It was repeatedly brought up by conservatives and did not work to shift anyone's opinion who had not already decided who they were voting for.

ABC News: More Challenges for McCain, From Ayers to the Palin Pick (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=6067150&page=1)


More challenges for John McCain: Likely voters overwhelmingly reject his effort to make an issue of Barack Obama's association with 1960s radical William Ayers. Fallout continues from McCain's pick of Sarah Palin for vice president, with 52 percent saying it weakens their confidence in his judgment. And on optimism, it's Obama by 2-1.

Skepticism about the Ayers issue was one of the factors cited by Colin Powell in his endorsement of Obama yesterday, and in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, likely voters broadly agree: 60 percent say Obama's relationship with Ayers is not a legitimate issue in the presidential campaign; 37 percent say it is.

There's less of a split, though, on the Obama campaign's association with the community group ACORN; 49 percent say it's not a legitimate issue, 40 percent say it is, with more, 11 percent, unready to express an opinion on the subject. McCain's accused ACORN of voter registration fraud; the group blames some of its canvassers for filling out faked forms, and says it itself has notified the authorities of such cases.

Dyndrilliac
11-05-2008, 07:23 PM
Oh how bitter sweet. Goodbye war(maybe), hello socialism and high taxes.Perhaps your unaware, but Americans already pay more taxes than the vast majority of large, wealthy, super-powers. We also spend more money annually on things like healthcare and education and yet still have an inferior system. I wonder how that came about, I'm sure it's not 30 years of right-wing ineptitude to blame, but I suppose it is possible *wink*.

Raistlin
11-05-2008, 08:01 PM
Actually you have everything exactly wrong. According to Gallup and ABC polls not only were nearly all voters aware of the William Ayers and his time with Obama

You already presented this point and I already rebutted it. You have not responded to my rebuttal but instead are repeating your (already rebutted) point.

Aberrant
11-05-2008, 08:05 PM
I am only going to touch on the free health care as that is basically what the military has. If you think it is going to be better you are most likely in for a rude awakening. Emergency rooms get flooded with every whining ass crazy around, and that is just what I have seen on the military side. I do not even want to think what it would be like in areas where people haven't been able to afford health care. Can you imagine the flood gates that will open if it becomes free? Instead of people just picking up a few over the counter meds from the grocery store they are all going to run in to the emergency room to get free **** for a runny nose or a tummy ache. It is going to get backed up bigger than **** and the doctors that who are all the sudden going to take a pay cut aren't going to give a **** about providing top notch health care.

And if they health care is being provided by the government, will you loose the right to sue for malpractice? We can't sue military doctors and they are federally funded.

PocketRevolution
11-05-2008, 08:19 PM
You will call me crazy now, but wait.

Obama will not turn the country socialist. Nor will he get out of the Iraq war. Quite possibly, under his presidency events will occur which will allow the vast majority of citizens to accept a new war. He won't "want to" start war with (Iran? Pakistan? N Korea?) but it will be his "only choice".

He will advance the agenda of the security state. He will further the Security and Prosperity Partnership / North American Union. We'll probably see the first mainstream awareness of the Amero in the next few years (as a remedy for the financial crisis). No renegotiation of trade agreements will occur. Civil rights will be further reduced to combat the threat of terrorism.

(I am not a psychic. Not all these things will happen exactly as I've described. But I think you can see the main thrust of my argument here.)

Electoral politics is a fixed game designed to offer you a choice between two cosmetically different parties who both serve the same agenda.

Barack Obama is not the American messiah.

Thank you and goodnight.

BLeH
11-05-2008, 08:22 PM
You already presented this point and I already rebutted it. You have not responded to my rebuttal but instead are repeating your (already rebutted) point.

There's was nothing to respond to. It was just some sour grapes. Your guy lost by a wide margin, and you couldn't deal with the fact that most people didn't want to see a McCain Administration.

Any search engine brings up literally tens of thousands of articles on obama, ayers, and wright on right-wing blogs and news sites that are recycling all your arguments. When the story broke throughout March to June all 3 main cable news channels looped Wrights sermons more times than anyone can count. Ads were being run all over Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania linking Obama to Wright and his sermons right on up to election day. Obama won all those states, Ohio wasn't even really close.

If you think the entire electorate was completely oblivious to this (even though they told every poll conducted within a month of election day they weren't)being to inept and incompetent to care to know even some of the most widely circulated information about the candidate they were voting for then i don't see how they would've cared if Stalin was running the country.

Intangir
11-05-2008, 08:23 PM
is this say the opposite thread?

theres no point trying to talk sense into obama lovers so.. hope you enjoy it

and just remember who you voted for

im going to bookmark this thread and lets pull it back up in 4 years and see how ****ing stupid you guys all are right now

Otaku
11-05-2008, 08:41 PM
is this say the opposite thread?

theres no point trying to talk sense into obama lovers so.. hope you enjoy it

and just remember who you voted for

im going to bookmark this thread and lets pull it back up in 4 years and see how ****ing stupid you guys all are right now

lol k.

RON PAUL DIDN'T WIN? WHAT A SHOCKER.

where's my martial law? :(

Dyndrilliac
11-06-2008, 02:32 AM
First of all, Obama would have to be the biggest moron in history to do something as stupid as to try to sling the nation into a totally liberal left-wing position. If he has any sense at all, and I think he does (he did run one of the most effective and calculated campaigns of all time), he will do his best to insure that the government is run with a more moderate view. Allowing extreme liberals to overreach would be committing the same mistake Bill Clinton made in the first couple years of his presidency which lead to conservative base panic and a revolution in Congress that cost the democrats their political edge until now.

Secondly, as far as I know, he plans to make universal healthcare available not by copying a socialist system but by reforming health insurance, and giving Americans that can't afford private insurance the same coverage that he and other politicians get from Uncle Sam (meaning people who are satisfied with the way things are won't even be affected).

All of this panic is ridiculous, and quite simply absurd. The country won't suddenly become a beacon of socialism come January 20th, and anyone who thinks that is the case is an idiot - pure and simple.

Xthar
11-06-2008, 04:28 AM
All of this panic is ridiculous, and quite simply absurd. The country won't suddenly become a beacon of socialism come January 20th, and anyone who thinks that is the case is an idiot - pure and simple.
I couldn't agree more. +rep

Raistlin
11-06-2008, 10:13 AM
Nor will he get out of the Iraq war.

Agreed. He will do precisely what we are already doing - cleaning up after the victory - no thanks to him, since he wanted to surrender and pull out in defeat.

To the point, yes, his promise of a 16-month withdrawal was a blatant lie used to steal the primaries from Hillary Clinton. He garnered the support of millions of Americans based on that promise and abandoned it right on schedule after the primaries. In an interview with Tim Russert he has even refused to promise that he would get us out of Iraq by 2013... and said that our forces may remain there for the purposes of security, training, etc. No change.


There's was nothing to respond to.

Yes, there was.

I will ask again. Were they aware of Wright, or were they aware that Wright was Obama's mentor? Were they aware of Ayers, or were they aware that Ayers launched Obama's career? Were they aware of Tony Rezko? Were they aware of Raila Odinga? Were they aware of Frank Marshall Davis? Were they aware of ACORN? Were they aware of the socialist New Party? Were they aware of Rashid Khalidi? Were they aware of Marilyn Katz?

So no, people didn't know about Obama when they voted. You can keep repeating the notion that people knew and simply didn't care, but I will keep refuting it with this simple series of questions.


You're wrong. People were obviously aware and didn't care.

Ditto above.


Any search engine brings up literally tens of thousands of articles on obama, ayers, and wright on right-wing blogs and news sites that are recycling all your arguments.

How many people seek out information online on their own, as opposed to the number of Americans touched by the mainstream media? It is the media's job to expose people to information - if people do not get information without digging through online sources, the media is not doing their job.


When the story broke throughout March to June all 3 main cable news channels looped Wrights sermons more times than anyone can count.

Okay, that's Wright. First, what about the rest? Second, how many people know that Wright is not just the pastor of a church Obama attended, but is Obama's MENTOR. And why was Obama allowed to get away with claiming that he never heard Wright's infamous rhetoric and never knew what Wright believed in - after twenty years of following the man, calling the man his mentor, and funneling money to the man from his positions on the boards of the CAC and the Woods Fund with William Ayers?


Ads were being run all over Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania linking Obama to Wright and his sermons right on up to election day.

First, once again, this does not apply to most of Obama's relationships. Second, why should paid ads (which will be attacked by both McCain's opponent and the media) be responsible for informing the public about the mountain of information regarding Obama's past? That is the media's job.


If you think the entire electorate was completely oblivious to this

The vast majority of the electorate could not list Obama's allies, could not tell you he was a member of the Socialist New Party, could not tell you that his Chicago mansion is thanks to a criminal slumlord; I could go on for a long time but you get the point. You can't deny this. If you honestly believe otherwise, I suggest you ask some random people on the street whether they know these things. Case closed.


First of all, Obama would have to be the biggest moron in history to do something as stupid as to try to sling the nation into a totally liberal left-wing position. If he has any sense at all, and I think he does (he did run one of the most effective and calculated campaigns of all time), he will do his best to insure that the government is run with a more moderate view. Allowing extreme liberals to overreach would be committing the same mistake Bill Clinton made in the first couple years of his presidency which lead to conservative base panic and a revolution in Congress that cost the democrats their political edge until now.

He will promote socialist policies to the extent that he can without upsetting his power base. I do have a feeling, though, that two or three years into his presidency things are going to get tough in that regard - by then most of the public will be aware of his membership in the Socialist New Party, and will be wishing they had known when they cast their vote.


All of this panic is ridiculous, and quite simply absurd. The country won't suddenly become a beacon of socialism come January 20th, and anyone who thinks that is the case is an idiot - pure and simple.

We do have a Socialist president now, that is a fact. And "Socialist" isn't just an empty name - he does indeed promote Socialist policies including redistribution of wealth, and this is only what we know now. We have no idea what policies he will introduce over the course of his term or (God forbid) two terms.

BLeH
11-06-2008, 10:23 AM
I'm not gunna argue anymore about this because now your just nit-picking. It's getting irrelevent. The whole ****ing story over wright was based on the fact that Obama had known him for so lond and that he was a mentor at one point. A simple search on youtube yeilded dozens upon dozens of editorial reports on major news networks about Obama's links to Ayers and Wright.

But you know honestly I don't care what they knew or if everyone was tuning out, because if you go into a voting booth and you don't know anything about the candidates, then it's your fault, period. If an electorate is that stupid they can't blame anyone except themselves. The media? Are you kidding me? Every individual has to form their own opinions and do their own research, if you can't do that then you deserve what you get.

Belphegor
11-06-2008, 10:40 AM
The medias job is not to focus on negative effects. This is a common misconception of the media. Why should I be the only student in a school of 4,000 to make front page, for getting caught with a 20$ bag, yet a student who is the 6th smartest in my state was lucky to make a back local page.

Everyone was made aware of by the media who Obama's Allys were. The issues were simply dropped after a few weeks, because nobody cared enough. If you'd like, I have quite a bit of recorded news reports stating about his minister, Ayers, and ACORN.

Raistlin
11-06-2008, 11:06 AM
I'm not gunna argue anymore about this because now your just nit-picking. It's getting irrelevent.

I'm not nit-picking at all. You are unable to respond to my clear rebuttal of your point.

You claimed that people did know about Obama when they voted but simply didn't care. Your evidence is a poll that says people did not think his association with Ayers or Wright was an issue. But were they aware of Ayers, or were they aware that Ayers launched Obama's career? Were they aware of Wright, or were they aware that Wright was Obama's mentor? Were they aware of Tony Rezko? Were they aware of Raila Odinga? Were they aware of Frank Marshall Davis? Were they aware of ACORN? Were they aware of the socialist New Party? Were they aware of Rashid Khalidi? Were they aware of Marilyn Katz? If not, then no, they did not know about Obama when they voted.


If an electorate is that stupid they can't blame anyone except themselves. The media? Are you kidding me? Every individual has to form their own opinions and do their own research, if you can't do that then you deserve what you get.

I agree that they are retards, and that they deserve what they get. But I am getting it too, and I am not a retard who votes for someone without doing the appropriate research.

And yes, it is the media's job to inform people if a Socialist is trying to take the presidency while concealing not only his Socialist affiliation but his affiliations with literally every category of anti-American radical. Are you kidding me? That is not just a news story, it is an epic news story. And you have no problem with the fact that the majority of the public voted for this man without being adequately informed of his past by the media - instead actually being told by the media in many cases that there is really nothing to it and McCain should be viewed negatively for bringing the subject up (omitting all of the relevant facts about the relationships in the course of making this argument). You must step out of your Obama fanboy shell and realize how transparent your arguments are.


Everyone was made aware of by the media who Obama's Allys were.

You are about the fifth person to argue this easily refutable point.

If you honestly believe this, print out a little quiz and go ask a few random people to fill it in. Ask them to list Obama's allies. I promise you that for the vast majority of people, they will be able to name two at the most. Then ask them to describe the extent of his relationship with these allies. I promise you that for the vast majority of people, they will not even come close to describing the extent of the relationships. Go try it.

Zhuinden
11-06-2008, 11:55 AM
I don't think his past is what truly matters. Though I might be wrong, I believe my brother whose view is that McCain has a lot more flaws than Obama, therefore that Obama has won it is not the beginning of the end of the world. McCain is a republican, he would have been the second Bush, he was promoting the war on Iraq and would have gone to Kuwait and Iran (or something like that). I believe you can't know for real at this point if Obama will do stuff right or wrong... But I don't think his past is what determines if he'll be a good or a bad president.

BLeH
11-06-2008, 12:28 PM
But I don't think his past is what determines if he'll be a good or a bad president.


I'm not going to argue anymore because i think the polls show overwhelmingly what issues people thought was more important and what they voted on, you could go on forever with hypothetical scenarios of who voters would have favored if the circumstances were different, but it's totally irrelevant at this point anyway. You presented all the evidence and points you wanted the media to focus in on this election on this message board, and I didn't see it shift a single sincere Obama supporter. I don't think McCain had a shot at the presidency from about a month ago no matter what happened because so many factors we're just not going his way. The media doesn't really have a mandate to do anything there a free press they can report whatever they want whatever makes money. They don't elect candidates the people do. If your going to blame the outcome on the media so be it, but it's not going to get you anywhere in terms of helping your guy by the time the next election rolls around because it's a factor you can't change.

And i'll stand by my statement if you rely on the media wholly to get your facts and form your opinions and your incapable of conducting your own research when they're inaccurate then at the end of the day you don't have anyone to blame except yourself. Blaming the media for your own ignorance is not a good excuse.

EDIT: Raistlin now your putting words in my mouth, I never said McCain should be viewed negatively for bringing Ayers up, I said he was viewed negatively for it, and i gave you those polls that demonstrated that, here it is again.

ABC News: More Challenges for McCain, From Ayers to the Palin Pick (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=6067150)


More challenges for John McCain: Likely voters overwhelmingly reject his effort to make an issue of Barack Obama's association with 1960s radical William Ayers. Fallout continues from McCain's pick of Sarah Palin for vice president, with 52 percent saying it weakens their confidence in his judgment. And on optimism, it's Obama by 2-1.

Skepticism about the Ayers issue was one of the factors cited by Colin Powell in his endorsement of Obama yesterday, and in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, likely voters broadly agree: 60 percent say Obama's relationship with Ayers is not a legitimate issue in the presidential campaign; 37 percent say it is.

You have not yet proven though that any of his past affiliations would have persuaded any significant amount of voters, which is what you keep saying that he couldn't win if they had been presented with what you've been posting. You haven't been able to do that to any Obama supporters on this board even after you were flooding it.

Raistlin
11-06-2008, 01:41 PM
I'm not going to argue anymore because i think the polls show overwhelmingly what issues people thought was more important and what they voted on
The polls show what people think. What people think is based on what the information they are aware of. And for most people, the information they are aware of is what the media tells them.

What I am saying here is a simple fact. If every voter in America was aware of Obama's membership in a socialist group, his mansion bought with the help of a criminal slumlord, his twenty-year long apprenticeship under a racist anti-American, his high school apprenticeship under a Communist Party member, etc. etc. etc., he would have received under 20% of the vote.

And if you believe that the majority of people DO know about these things, I challenge you to go out and ask a few random people - and realize just how wrong you are.

****, you yourself didn't know until earlier today. Would you like me to quote you from the other thread saying that Obama isn't any of these things (a socialist, an ally of racists and slumlords and communists and unapologetic domestic terrorists)? How can you in one moment deny his past, and then turn around and argue that everyone knew about it when they voted but simply didn't care? Do you not realize that you are debating the same person in both threads?

you could go on forever with hypothetical scenarios of who voters would have favored if the circumstances were different, but it's totally irrelevant at this point anyway.
It's not irrelevant. The circumstances should have been different. If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty you would be outraged that the majority of the public (including yourself) made it all the way to voting day without being informed by the media of Obama's history and alliances. But since they are working for your crush instead of against him, you have no problem with it. Cute.

You presented all the evidence and points you wanted the media to focus in on this election on this message board, and I didn't see it shift a single sincere Obama supporter.
Information provided by the mainstream media to the American public carries a lot more weight than information provided by a known conservative to Obama fanboys so sycophantic that they don't skip a beat when they learn that their heart-throb is a Socialist and an ally of every kind of anti-American radical.

I don't think McCain had a shot at the presidency from about a month ago no matter what happened because so many factors we're just not going his way.
If every American voter knew about Obama's twenty-year long history of alliances with anti-American radicals, including his membership in a Socialist group, Obama did not have a shot. Guaranteed win for McCain. You may be nutty enough to vote for a Socialist, but 80% of the country wouldn't. How beneficial to Obama that the American public was allowed by the media to go the polls without this knowledge.

On a separate point, I also take issue with the idea that things in general were going Obama's way. He was at a steep disadvantage in this election save for the media's active support. First, the obvious matter of his longstanding history of anti-American alliances while running against a war hero. Second, he was blatantly unqualified while running against someone with plenty of experience. Third, he would have surrendered and pulled out of Iraq in defeat, and it was the troop surge his opponent supported that has us winning the war. Fourth, while his fellow party members killed a bill that would have regulated Fannie and Freddie, and he lined his pockets with more money per year from Fannie and Freddie than any other Senator, his opponent supported regulating Fannie and Freddie. Fifth, he presented a blatantly socialist tax proposal and appealed to class warfare, while his opponent proposed tax cuts for everyone who pays them and opposed the socialist ideology of taking money from one person to give money to another person. Sixth, he is anti-business while his opponent is pro-business. Seventh, he is visibly soft on foreign policy (there is overlap here with the point about experience as well as the point about his defeatist inclination to call for surrender in a war where we have never lost a battle) while his opponent is strong on foreign policy and willing to take a stance against countries like Iran and Russia.

Even setting aside all of these issues, Obama would have immediately lost support among 80% of the public if the media had publicized his membership in a Socialist group, making it literally impossible that he would have won without what happened - the media concealing this information, ignoring most of his alliances, downplaying the alliances that did come to light, and neglecting to call out his Socialist policies for what they are.

The media doesn't really have a mandate to do anything there a free press they can report whatever they want whatever makes money.
When the mainstream media neglects to inform the public that a presidential candidate is a Socialist, and that person gets elected by the uninformed public, that is a big problem. If you don't realize that you need to wake up.

They don't elect candidates the people do.
They provide the information upon which the people make their decision.

If your going to blame the outcome on the media so be it, but it's not going to get you anywhere in terms of helping your guy by the time the next election rolls around because it's a factor you can't change.
It's not something I can't change... it's something WE can't change. We are both victim to this whether you realize it or not. When the media in this country is using its position as the source of information for the American public to help elect a Socialist into the presidency, you should care as much as I do.

EDIT: Raistlin, I never said McCain should be viewed negatively for bringing Ayers up
I never said you did. I said that the media portrayed McCain as going too negative for bringing it up.

I said he was viewed negatively for it, and i gave you those polls that demonstrated that
According to the polls, all the way up to the final vote, a man who is a Socialist with no political experience and is allied with every category of anti-American radical is a better choice to lead our country than a recognized war hero who has a history of bi-partisan legislative work going back twenty years (about the same amount of time Obama has been allying himself with anti-Americans). The polls demonstrate what the media tells the public.

You have not yet proven though that any of his past affiliations would have persuaded any significant amount of voters, you haven't been able to do that to any Obama supporters on this board even after you were flooding it.
If you aren't aware that 80% of Americans wouldn't vote for a Socialist, go ask around on the street without mentioning Obama in any way.

Dyndrilliac
11-06-2008, 01:57 PM
Asking people if they would vote for a socialist is beyond idiotic, for the simple reason that the vast majority of people who weren't around in the McCarthy era or aren't fairly fluent in political science or sociology don't even know what a socialist is. Also, many nations that are considered to be some of Americas greatest allies are based around socialism. Socialism isn't evil, nor is it something to be scorned.

The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you want to blame the lack of outrage at Obama on the media, nobody really forms their opinions based on the media. People tend to be partisan even when they shouldn't be, and most hardcore Republicans went with McCain Palin not because they agreed with their policies but because they are ignorant fans, embracing anything with a red background and an elephant logo. Of course, the same can be said for the Democrats, but then again the reason McCain got obliterated is because the GOP gave practically all the power to a president who did not represent the principles on which modern conservatism was founded. McCain's downfall is not the fault of the media but George W. Bush's big government "conservatism" and reckless fiscal policies.

You should feel betrayed by your party, not the media. And on another note, I know full well about Obama's less-than desirable affiliations and I voted for him anyway. How do you know others knew and didn't do the same? You have no basis for assuming that the only reason people voted for him is because they didn't know.

Stop being such a whiny cry baby, blame your precious GOP - if they had nominated McCain the first time he ran instead of that idiot they wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. As a matter of fact, I can honestly say that if McCain had run on the GOP ticket in 2000 even I would have voted for him, I hated Gore and Lieberman.

BLeH
11-06-2008, 02:07 PM
What I am saying here is a simple fact. If every voter in America was aware of Obama's membership in a socialist group, his mansion bought with the help of a criminal slumlord, his twenty-year long apprenticeship under a racist anti-American, his high school apprenticeship under a Communist Party member, etc. etc. etc., he would have received under 20% of the vote.

If every American voter knew about Obama's twenty-year long history of alliances with anti-American radicals, including his membership in a Socialist group, Obama did not have a shot. Guaranteed win for McCain. You may be nutty enough to vote for a Socialist, but 80% of the country wouldn't. How beneficial to Obama that the American public was allowed by the media to go the polls without this knowledge.

When the mainstream media neglects to inform the public that a presidential candidate is a Socialist, and that person gets elected by the uninformed public, that is a big problem. If you don't realize that you need to wake up.

They provide the information upon which the people make their decision.

It's not something I can't change... it's something WE can't change. We are both victim to this whether you realize it or not. When the media in this country is using its position as the source of information for the American public to help elect a Socialist into the presidency, you should care as much as I do.


Your trying to drag me into an ideological debate on Obama's policy and i'm not gunna get into that right now. What i meant is that those policies you listed were in Obamas favor as far as the voting pubilc was concerned.

You keep going on like a broken record. If the american public won't access information that is at their fingertips, then that's their fault. If you allow someone else or a media to dictate what the facts are to you then too bad, your that stupid you deserve to lose. Whining endlessly that the american's who voted against your candidate don't really count because according to you they would have voted your way if they only knew what you knew really is being a sore loser.

Personally i don't think the media was biased anyways i found tons of investigative reports on youtube pertaining to his relationship with ayers and wright airing on cable networks. I also searched the databases on all 3 major cable networks FOX MSNBC and CNN and found article after article on wright and ayers. All of them go into detail about ayer's actions with weather underground, and they also go into wright's sermons. No shortage of them omitted that wright was his mentor, and neither did Barack himself in his own book and i think he even repeated that fact when he was repudiating the remarks wright made at the national press club. I couldn't stop hearing about ayers and wright during the campaign on the news in fact thats where i originally heard about them so i get the sense that we're living in separate worlds or that your just pouting that your guy lost so badly.


And if you believe that the majority of people DO know about these things, I challenge you to go out and ask a few random people - and realize just how wrong you are.

I really want to challenge you though on what your evidence is there that this information would produce a dramatic shift in paradigm if the press had emphasized it more. I think i'm speaking rather uncontroversially when i say that this board is predominately for Obama. If it's true that if the press had been more forthcoming in reporting the information that you are would have resulted in a McCain victory, then a very large portion of this board should of also been persuaded. I challenge you to cite a single former Obama supporter who recanted his support after reading your posts. I don't think you can. All i've seen is supporter arguing with you, not defecting so i'm seriously doubting that...

Raistlin
11-06-2008, 02:53 PM
Asking people if they would vote for a socialist is beyond idiotic, for the simple reason that the vast majority of people who weren't around in the McCarthy era or aren't fairly fluent in political science or sociology don't even know what a socialist is. Also, many nations that are considered to be some of Americas greatest allies are based around socialism. Socialism isn't evil, nor is it something to be scorned.
Regardless of your stance on Socialism, the vast majority of the American public would not knowingly vote for a Socialist, especially one who is allied with every kind of anti-American.

The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you want to blame the lack of outrage at Obama on the media, nobody really forms their opinions based on the media.
Don't lie to yourself. When the media chooses not to inform the public that a presidential candidate is a Socialist who is allied with every kind of anti-American radical, and the public proceeds to vote that man into office, the media certainly is to blame for deceiving the public.

And on another note, I know full well about Obama's less-than desirable affiliations and I voted for him anyway. How do you know others knew and didn't do the same?
I never said there are no retards in existence who would knowingly vote into the presidency a man who is allied with every kind of anti-American there is. I merely said that they would represent less than 20% of the public. If you believe otherwise, go ask around and see how many people you can find who knew the details of his long-standing anti-American alliances and voted for him anyway. Good luck.

Stop being such a whiny cry baby
This is the state of America today? When a logical person expects the media in our country to report the news instead of bamboozling the public into electing a Socialist for president, he is now being a whiny cry baby? That's how you label me? Okay.

Get the **** out of my country, you naive Socialist-wannabe piece of trash.

I'm glad we understand each other.

Whining endlessly that the american's who voted against your candidate don't really count because according to you they would have voted your way if they only knew what you knew really is being a sore loser.
Saying that it is a shame for the media to be complicit in allowing a Socialist who is allied with every category of anti-American radical to be elected president in this country is just common sense. It's not whining or being a sore loser. I care about my country and I do not want to live under a Socialist regime.

I couldn't stop hearing about ayers and wright during the campaign on the news in fact thats where i originally heard about them so i get the sense that we're living in separate worlds or that your just pouting that your guy lost so badly.
For the umpteenth time - you heard about Ayers and Wright... but did you know the extent of either relationship? And did you know about Tony Rezko? Raila Odinga? Frank Marshall Davis? The socialist New Party? Marilyn Katz? ACORN? Rashid Khalidi?

I know you didn't know these things, because you denied them earlier today on this same forum.

I really want to challenge you though on what your evidence is there that this information would produce a dramatic shift in paradigm if the press had emphasized it more.
80% of Americans would not vote for a Socialist. Ask around without mentioning Obama, and you will find out very quickly.

I think i'm speaking rather uncontroversially when i say that this board is predominately for Obama. If it's true that if the press had been more forthcoming in reporting the information that you are would have resulted in a McCain victory, then a very large portion of this board should of also been persuaded.
I already refuted this line of thought by pointing out the difference between information exchanged between the news and the public and information exchanged between a known conservative and a group of Obama fanboys so sycophantic that they honestly don't care when they learn that their crush is a card-carrying Socialist. You seem to have a tendency to repeat points which have already been refuted.

ViperSRT3g
11-06-2008, 03:59 PM
And you know that this is usually the end result of some political thread. People just start flaming each other. -.- I'm sure Obama won't try to change America into a Socialist country at all. At the most, he'll probably bring Socialist ideas to the table which would greatly help the state of our nation at a time like this. In order to fix the damage that's been done to our economy by Bush, the fastest way to do it is to control how wealth is spread, and hopefully he'll try to concentrate most of our spending on our own country rather than some country in the middle east. And have you seen the national debt lately? People have gotten complacent about this. Something must be done about it. Why not raise taxes a bit that way we can get rid of that massive debt for good. Getting rid of the debt in any other way would take too long, or would require the US to turn into something close to being a totalitarian government. And I'm sure no one would want that.

If the US were to suddenly declare that all it's citizens would be taxed 100% of their money, but not need to worry about food to eat, or bills to pay, then what? What can people really do to get that money back? They all live in the same country, that country's taxing are controlled completely by itself. It's not like the nation is breaking any laws. Now THAT is Socialism. And I'm damn sure no one would ever let that happen. Which is why I am sure Obama would never do that. He couldn't, things like the Senate, and the Supreme Court would intervene. Which is why I say again, the most he can do is bring Socialistic ideas to the table, because America can never be converted from it's Democratic Republic State that it's in now.

Raistlin
11-06-2008, 04:26 PM
I'm not flaming, I simply take issue with being characterized as a whiny cry baby because of my legitimate concerns over the election of a Socialist president and the manipulation of the public by the media. I find that a ****inpwnage response serves to illustrate the direction that this kind of characterization takes the discussion.

Regarding the damage that can be done by a Socialist anti-American who has managed to position himself at the top of our own government, that remains to be seen. Even without knowing how far he will push it, we already know that he plans to redistribute wealth. We already know that he intends to create a new second military that will equal the size of our current military. We already know that he uses every tool at his disposal to silence free speech. For those of us who do not wish to be ruled by a Socialist tyrant, these are not good signs of things to come.

BLeH
11-06-2008, 04:32 PM
You seem to have a tendency to repeat points which have already been refuted.

You seem to have a tendency to confront weaknesses in your arguments by going on diatribes telling others their views have been repudiated when the reverse is true.


Regardless of your stance on Socialism, the vast majority of the American public would not knowingly vote for a Socialist, especially one who is allied with every kind of anti-American.

Maybe so, but so what? Shouldn't matter especially not to you. Every single opinion poll i've cited that places a healthy majority of american's opinion in opposition to yours you've dismissed as being a reflection of the media, why should this be any different? Other than the fact that you happen to agree with the majority this time lol....You can't pick and choose which polls your going to take seriously and which ones your going to trash and ignore based on what you think others do or should believe. That's not scientific at all. The data is data.

Secondly, if you asked me "What is your stance on socialism?" or "Would you elect a socialist president?" the answer would be no, yet I still agree with alot of obama's stances. The answer is not at all indicative of whether or not someone would support him or not. Socialism is a buzz word it elicits negative emotions, and most people don't agree that Obama qualifies as a socialist.

If you asked "Do you believe Obama is a Socialist?" you would get a much different answer, but of course those results you wouldn't be interested in rofl...

I didn't ask you to use his affiliations to sway the "obama fanboys", i said just one individual. You've said the press could've utilized these revelations to shift the entire population, but you can't even use them to convince a single person?

Honestly most of the republican party was pretty gracious including John McCain when he lost, i've not seen someone pouting and crying and making senseless excuses for having your candidate lose a landslide as much as you have in this forum. You lost seats in 2006, and you continued enormous losses in 2008, not because of a media conspiracy but because most people disagreed with Bush's policies like the Iraq war, and health care(they favor what you would call socialised healthcare 2 to 1). No doubt more opinions you will attribute to media intervention. The reason why the republican party is on this losing streak really is because of people like you who all along absolutely refused to compromise even the slightest change in policy and can't bear the thought that your presidency might be in it's final throes. If your party continues down the same path and takes nothing away from this election you will continue to lose more down the line.

The fact that your a demagogue trying to reduce the votes and opinions of 35 million people you don't even know to a conspiracy you've made up in your head is the kind of backwardness that got you into this position.

If you want to talk about questionable alliances and churches you don't have to look further than this years republican ticket. You might try to marginalize the selection of Sara Palin, but the fact is who a president picks as his running mate has alot to say about his judgement and who he surrounds himself with. The fact that McCain would be the oldest president in office and with his dubious medical records amplifies that importance

Palin was for some time involved in a congregation in alaska that subscribed to the crackpot belief that they had pinpointed a time in the near future when the world was coming to an end, and they supported foreign policies they thought might be a catalyst to bring it on a little bit quicker. They were openly rooting for an armageddon to reign down on earth so that they could be selectively picked into another realm to celebrate for an eternity, leaving the rest of us who had chosen to abstain from taking a share in a rather disturbing human sacrifice thousands of years ago to wallow behind consumed in a hell fire on earth. How is Obama's affiliation with a racist loon any worse than Sara Palin's involvement in an organization that was advocating a near extinction of the human species?

Belphegor
11-06-2008, 09:23 PM
Your easily "refuted" point, in my opinion seems to only count for your local area. Here in PA, less then 20% cared about his affiliations. Locally, less then 8%. And as I said, I see plenty on it, as it was the discussion of every "mentor" and guide I knew when Obama first won the ticket.

Dyndrilliac
11-07-2008, 04:08 AM
Raistlin: I noticed you didn't bother to answer to my comments about this blunder being your party's fault. The fact of the matter is, you're butthurt because the GOP ****ed everybody over by placing Bush in power instead of McCain in the first place, and you're too much of an ignorant whiny ass prejudiced piece of trash McCarthy era bastard GOP fanboy to admit it.

I hope you enjoy living in your tiny shell where the GOP can do no wrong and McCain and Bush piss liquid cocaine, because Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave right now. The last eight years stand for everything that conservatism does not, you just need a ****ing scapegoat. It's sad and pathetic, and you need to remember that this country was founded on the basis of being able to make your own choices, not blindly following whatever the leaders of your political party say.

Edit: McCain is just as culpable as Bush because he supported the retard when he knew it was wrong and against the foundation of modern conservatism. He is a blatant sell-out, willing to do anything to further himself politically.

Raistlin
11-07-2008, 10:55 PM
I noticed you didn't bother to answer to my comments about this blunder being your party's fault.

It's the Republicans' fault when the media neglects to inform the public that a Socialist is taking over the country? Get real.


The fact of the matter is, you're butthurt because the GOP ****ed everybody over by placing Bush in power instead of McCain in the first place, and you're too much of an ignorant whiny ass prejudiced piece of trash McCarthy era bastard GOP fanboy to admit it.

Some people are so stupid that they don't realize when they have been mocked.

I'll spell it out for you. In absence of the ability to respond to my logic, you resorted to name-calling. My illustrative response in kind was a mocking one. That you go even further with your mindless ad hominem in this recent post highlights my point.

In response to the gist of your post - you can hem and haw all you want, but it is a simple fact that Obama would have received a tiny fraction of the vote if the general public was aware that he is a Socialist and that he is allied with every category of anti-American radical. If you believe otherwise, then go educate yourself by asking a few random people whether they think a Socialist and ally of anti-Americans should be president (without mentioning Obama). You will find out very quickly that this is not something most Americans support.


He is a blatant sell-out, willing to do anything to further himself politically.

It is amazing when someone is so brainwashed that they would refer this way to McCain without realizing who they are actually describing to a "T"... the man who was willing to ally himself for twenty years with people who hate America to further his political career while John McCain spent that same twenty years leading on bi-partisan legislation on Capitol Hill.

Belphegor
11-07-2008, 11:10 PM
You say we need more points as you refute arguments, but I believe it is you who needs it more. We've pointed out statistical polls, resources showing people knew but neglected his alliances, etc etc as you claim we don't do. All the while you keep spouting off the same arguments, "ohh the media never told anyone!", but they did.

Some good quotes for you.


You already presented this point and I already rebutted it. You have not responded to my rebuttal but instead are repeating your (already rebutted) point

DUI_
11-07-2008, 11:18 PM
Respect to Degausser and Perma on your input.
In my opinion many promises were made that will never be fulfilled.

Obama wants to raise taxes on the "rich" and large companies so others dont have to pay any. American businesses already pay the highest tax in the world, 33%. This may sound like a great plan to the average Joe but in the end its going to hurt the average Joe the most.

It works like this. You raise Big Company's taxes. Big Company raises the price of their goods/services to cover cost of higher taxes. Average Joe has to pay more for the same product. Big Company might lay off average Joe employees and hire employees in India to save money due to higher taxes. Average Joe now has no job and has to pay higher prices.

So tell me, who did Obama help? Obama didnt hurt the big business, he hurt the people who he says he is protecting, the people who voted for him.

Belphegor
11-07-2008, 11:35 PM
It doesn't really work like that. When you say higher taxes for the rich, that generally means higher income tax. That will have no effect on basic commodities in general like milk. For someone selling milk to raise their price by a dollar, that means everyone else doing so will have to as well. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act prevents such cartels or collusion among sellers. Thus in you example, the farmer raising his price by a dollar would not be able to sell any milk.

Raistlin
11-07-2008, 11:37 PM
You seem to have a tendency to confront weaknesses in your arguments by going on diatribes telling others their views have been repudiated when the reverse is true.Your view was repudiated. Would you like me to quote that line of dialogue right up through the point that you began to ignore the rebuttal and repeat your already rebutted point?


Maybe so, but so what? Shouldn't matter especially not to you. Every single opinion poll i've cited that places a healthy majority of american's opinion in opposition to yours you've dismissed as being a reflection of the media, why should this be any different?Because it is different. People's poor view of Socialists and anti-Americans is not a product of the media, it is a product of the fact that these people stand opposed to our way of life. But people's uninformed support for Barack Obama is a direct result of the media's actions throughout this election cycle.


Socialism is a buzz word it elicits negative emotions, and most people don't agree that Obama qualifies as a socialist.Once again, you can't disagree with a fact, you can only be ignorant of it. People are ignorant of this because the media chose not to inform them.


You've said the press could've utilized these revelations to shift the entire population, but you can't even use them to convince a single person?What I am saying is a simple fact - most people in this country do not support Socialism and anti-Americanism and would not knowingly vote for a man with these affiliations. If you challenge this fact then go ask a few random people and educate yourself. Then you will understand that if the media had broadcast this information to the public it would have been a disaster for Obama.

Whether I, as a known conservative, can sway someone among a handful of Obama fanboys whose crushes are so devastating that they honestly don't care when they find out that their heart-throb is a Socialist and ally of anti-Americans, is a different matter entirely.


because most people disagreed with Bush's policies like the Iraq warThis was a policy shared by both Democrats and Republicans.


and health care(they favor what you would call socialised healthcare 2 to 1)Health care notwithstanding, Obama only won by 3%... with the voting public unaware that he is a Socialist and ally of every category of anti-American. If you don't realize that publicizing that information would have cost him more than 3 percentage points you are in la-la land.


The fact that your a demagogue trying to reduce the votes and opinions of 35 million people you don't even know to a conspiracy you've made up in your head is the kind of backwardness that got you into this position.Oh, yea. I've always been known as a big conspiracy theorist. It's all in my head.

Barack Obama's affiliations are fact. The public's ignorance of these affiliations is fact. The media's role in the public's ignorance is fact. Open your eyes.


How is Obama's affiliation with a racist loon any worseLOL.

You meant to say how is Obama's twenty-year-long apprenticeship under a racist anti-American, his career-building alliance with an unrepentant domestic terrorist, his courtship and favor-trading with a criminal slumlord, his campaigning for a Marxist scumbag at taxpayer expense, his paying a million dollars to ACORN for fraudulent voter registrations and lying about it, his long-term friendship with a PLO mouthpiece and Yasser Arafat apologist, and his membership in a Socialist group any worse than Palin's church and their wacky beliefs?

And the answer is pretty ****ing obvious.


We've pointed out statistical polls, resources showing people knew but neglected his alliances, etc etc as you claim we don't do.You guys have only shown polls that said people didn't think Ayers or Wright were an issue. But this doesn't tell us how much these people actually knew about the two relationships, nor does this address any of his other numerous anti-American alliances including his membership in the socialist New Party.


So tell me, who did Obama help? Obama didnt hurt the big business, he hurt the people who he says he is protecting, the people who voted for him.Trying to get these guys to understand that Obama's tax hikes will hit the middle class is probably a lost cause.

Belphegor
11-07-2008, 11:56 PM
Once again, you can't disagree with a fact, you can only be ignorant of it. People are ignorant of this because the media chose not to inform them.How you choose to be ingnorant of the idea that other people also chose to be ignorant of the things you speak of.


You guys have only shown polls that said people didn't think Ayers or Wright were an issue. But this doesn't tell us how much these people actually knew about the two relationships, nor do this address any of his other numerous anti-American alliances including his membership in the socialist New Party.They wouldn't of known who they were if as you claim the media did not make them aware of these people. What else would the media have said? Hi, this is ACORN, Obama just hangs with them...

No, the media did tell us what these organizations and people did, and what relationships they had with people. Otherwise they would not be known at all.

As far as his economic plans. The American people have lost over $1 trillion net worth on the last four weeks. That's about $3300 per person, can it honestly get much worse?

Ayers wasn't exactly a household name til the right found him. I know and have spoken to many who were there in the Sixties and no one took the Weathermen seriously, any more than the Yippies or any other bunch of pot smoking fruitcakes. As I've said before, it's a joke equating the Weathermen with Islamic terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was a domestic terrorist worthy of the name. Ayers was a stoner with an attitude.

Since the public such as yourselves have such a problem with Ayers. Why is he a professor at one of our top universities? Why did he serve on a board at the University of South Carolina? If Ayers is such a terrorist what is he doing teaching kids? Why hasn't he been removed? People have been removed from universities for marital issues before, much less interests of National Security.

Raistlin
11-08-2008, 12:51 AM
How you choose to be ingnorant of the idea that other people also chose to be ignorant of the things you speak of.

Most of them didn't choose to be ignorant, they just foolishly counted on the mainstream media for their information.


They wouldn't of known who they were if as you claim the media did not make them aware of these people.

The fact that these people said Ayers and Wright weren't an issue doesn't prove that they know the facts surrounding the relationships. Me saying global warming isn't an issue doesn't prove that I know the facts surrounding global warming.


As far as his economic plans. The American people have lost over $1 trillion net worth on the last four weeks. That's about $3300 per person, can it honestly get much worse?

Yeah.

But I am a lot more concerned about the idea of a Socialist ally of anti-Americans working from within our own government to institute policies that push the country towards a Socialist state.


Ayers was a stoner with an attitude.

He bombed the Capitol. He bombed the Pentagon. He planned to bomb the White House. He bombed the NYPD. He bombed a judge's home...

That's some attitude.


Why is he a professor at one of our top universities?

Because his daddy is Thomas Ayers, the Chicago energy tycoon and friend to the Mayor as well as influential people in education like Howard Trienen. Ayers' wife, Dohrn, similarly holds a prestigious position as a professor of law (even though she was refused from the bar and has never practiced law).


If Ayers is such a terrorist what is he doing teaching kids?

Indoctrinating them. And I'm not being facetious. You can read about his "educational philosophy" at Barack Obama and William Ayers | The Slipping Mask (http://www.theslippingmask.com/barack-obama-and-william-ayers).

DUI_
11-08-2008, 02:06 AM
Most of the people here don't own homes, have children, own their own business, ect. So they really have no idea what we are saying Raistlin. They are basing the opinions on the media or promises from a politician.

Belphore you are wrong and I will use your same example to explain why.
"the farmer raising his price by a dollar would not be able to sell any milk. "
The farmer raised his price so that he makes the same amount of profit as he did prior to the tax increase, if he doesn't raise his price he will make very little or no profit. Then he will just stop selling milk. The demand for milk will go up as competition falls apart and the price will go up even further. But this is all part of Obamas plan. Once the economy crashes and everyone is broke Obama can offer a solution, Socialism. And sadly people will probably go for it. Just as people blindly have faith in him today.

Free market doesnt work when govt raise taxes as much as obama plans to.
I have owned my own business and speaking from experience I can tell you over the next 4 years you will see small business's close dramatically, jobs will be set over seas for cheaper labor, and the economy will be the worst ever.

Why? Because Obamas plan simply wont work. But I promise you when the **** hits the fan Obama will blame president bush for it because he has no other excuse. Democrats control the house, senate, and the presidency so there will be no one to blame but themselves. Obama will say something along the lines of "Bush created such a big problem things cannot be fixed", when the truth is Obama is to blame.

Belphegor
11-08-2008, 08:23 AM
I own 3 houses, and 11 rental units. My taxes go up, by rates which haven't been seen from the 80's, every year since 2002. People are the same tenants, who lived in that house for 10+ years, are having more and more problems with paying rent on time. My rents gone up less then 3% of the taxes for the property, and being pooled adds up to 10-18%, and Ive paid the remainder.

Oil goes up, causing one house, which has insulating I installed myself, anywhere from 300-700$ in the month of November to heat.

Things go up every year. Its hard from someone from home owners views, for any of what Barack Obama promises. And if he can deliver anything, it is in considerable amounts less. However, I am arguing that people were aware of Obama's relationships and ties. Im sorry, but they were. Have you ever stopped to think about the mind sets of the American people for the last 8 years? We are constantly bombarded with negative response from the government. And we respond in kind. Congress, who never has a good approval rating above 50, is still at an all time low, 17 to 30 for its high and low days. The president, which holds an astonishing 24!

The people did know. A considerable amount of republicans had to vote Obama in the states republicans once claimed. It was shown in Virginia, it was shown in Pennsylvania. The American people, all be it maybe a grave mistake, made this choice. And no matter what, for 4 years we as Americans have to stand by it. It will not change.

DUI_
11-08-2008, 10:46 AM
^Sad but true statement. I think the media is to blame more than anything. Most public opinion is based on what people hear on the news, which is biased or misleading.

Raistlin
11-08-2008, 02:18 PM
However, I am arguing that people were aware of Obama's relationships and ties. Im sorry, but they were.

This notion is quite easy to dispel. Take a notepad around and ask a few random people to name Obama's long-term allies. It will become clear very quickly when you can't find a single person who isn't ignorant of most of them. Then ask your respondents to describe the extent of whatever relationships they are aware of. Because the matter will be further clarified when you can't find a single person who can describe the extent of the relationships.

PocketRevolution
11-08-2008, 02:30 PM
This is the state of America today? When a logical person expects the media in our country to report the news instead of bamboozling the public into electing a Socialist for president, he is now being a whiny cry baby? That's how you label me? Okay.


If you think's it's logical to expect honest reporting, I would label you naive.

That's a real gem. Report the news.

IT'S NOT THEIR F**KING JOB

Their job is to tell you how to think and what to think about. It's to keep you believing in the greatness of your country and the righteousness of your government's actions. To keep you occupied debating pointless political minutiae while their financiers continue to rob us all blind. To flat-out engineer our perception of our common experience.

The media selects all our leaders. They do so by narrowing the field to two to three "realistic candidates". The ones they tell us have a realistic chance of winning...who have that realistic chance because they've been thus selected.

Coke or Pepsi? Coke or Pepsi? What? You want water? Fringe candidate. No chance. Wasted vote.

Raistlin
11-08-2008, 05:06 PM
If you think's it's logical to expect honest reporting, I would label you naive.

I don't expect impartiality. And I don't expect for things to never be ignored for the sake of favoring the press's chosen candidate. I don't expect honesty from this press, either in tone or in full coverage of the facts regarding a story.

What I expect is for bombshell news stories to not be completely shuffled under the rug so that a Socialist is able to take over the country. That is beyond partiality, it is beyond dishonesty, it is beyond a failure to live up to the responsiblities of the press. It is a silent coup.

Belphegor
11-08-2008, 05:15 PM
Well. I did you notepad test.

4 out of 7 were able to answer. 3 of the 4, went into further depth then even you when it came to they're ties and relationships.

Raistlin
11-08-2008, 05:16 PM
What were their answers, specifically?

Belphegor
11-08-2008, 05:51 PM
Well, only one was done via online through IM. So Ill post her comments directly, as for the other three, I can have more comments from them at a later date, probably between tomorrow and Monday.


Obama’s admission in a debate that he briefly served on “a board” with Ayers with little contact gets shot down. CNN followed up on Kurtz’ work with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and debunks that notion. They also — amazingly — report on the nature of the grants made by the CAC while Obama ran it to Ayers’ favored schools with radical agendas.

While the University sits on the complete Annenberg Challenge records, several months ago I was able to obtain certain key records of the Challenge - including board minutes, annual and semi-annual reports and financial records - from Brown University's Annenberg Institute. Brown housed the national Annenberg Challenge program that was set up in 1993 by a gift of $500 million from Walter Annenberg.

While the material I was provided is helpful it is no substitute for the complete documentary record that is apparently housed at the University of Illinois (some 70 linear feet of documents according to the library's public records) and thus that public University should immediately make available to the public those records.

Obama has lied about his “coming out party” at the home of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in 1995. Obama has said that Alice Palmer arranged the fundraiser and the venue, I have however spoke to two people who attended the event, who claim Obama lied. Palmer had nothing to do with that event outside of being invited to it. Obama and Ayers planned the event themselves.

Obama has lied repeatedly about his relationship with the unrepentant domestic terrorist. He spent years working for Ayers, promoting Ayers’ causes.

Obama is a Communist. Period. His entire life is an attempt to bring the US into conformity to World Socialism through political activism from inside the system.

Obviously by her citing CNN, she got none of this information from watching the news. :rolleyes:

We had an approximate 2 hour conversation on this, and as such it requires a lot of editing to remove names, timestamps and other personal references and opinions, but I believe this is what you were looking for. As I said, I will post tomorrow with at least 1 of the others comments, directly input through me on this forum, when he visits. As for my neighbor, you'll have to wait for him to get back, he's in a business meeting in Philadelphia and is scheduled to be home sometime tomorrow after noon.

Aberrant
11-08-2008, 06:36 PM
Did that person still vote for Obama Belph?

Raistlin
11-08-2008, 07:21 PM
That's not what I'm talking about at all.

Go around and ask a few random people - people you do not know - to spontaneously list Barack Obama's long-term allies and tell you the extent of the relationships. I guarantee you will find that very few people can name more than two, and most either can not name any or can only name one. Then ask your respondents to tell you the extent of whatever relationships they did know about. I guarantee you will find that very few people can tell you the extent of the relationships.

Belphegor
11-08-2008, 07:35 PM
Surprisingly, yes she did vote for Obama. Not without extreme decision making, and grinding of statistical information for the past 9 months on her republican party. She had to re-register to do so as well.

Raistlin, I give up. It isn't what you wanted because you don't want to believe that she was informed via media. This is the superintendent of my school district, Dr. Emery. I never met her personally, merely started this topic on our school forums last night, and she was someone to respond to it. She listed more ties to Obama then even you pointed out, with a detailed list of information on all 9 of them. Im done playing your game of cat and mouse, where the mouse is already trapped in the tub. It's impossible to win by your standards, even if there was a ladder to walk right out of, you'd burn it down with the flames of your enlightened ignorance.

As I said earlier

The American people, all be it maybe a grave mistake, made this choice. And no matter what, for 4 years we as Americans have to stand by it. It will not change

Now whose being Anti-American? Thats the problem with our election system. People lose sight that they're voting for the president of the people, not the leader of they're perspective political party's.

Raistlin
11-08-2008, 07:43 PM
Raistlin, I give up. It isn't what you wanted because you don't want to believe that she was informed via media. This is the superintendent of my school district, Dr. Emery. I never met her personally, merely started this topic on our school forums last night, and she was someone to respond to it. She listed more ties to Obama then even you pointed out, with a detailed list of information on all 9 of them. Im done playing your game of cat and mouse, where the mouse is already trapped in the tub. It's impossible to win by your standards, even if there was a ladder to walk right out of, you'd burn it down with the flames of your enlightened ignorance.

Hey, if you don't understand why it needs to be more than one person, why they can't be sitting in front of a computer, and why the people need to be strangers, go along your merry way.

What I am saying is a simple fact. If you do what I suggested you will find that only a small fraction of people can name Obama's allies and tell you the extent of the relationships. They do not know.

Aberrant
11-08-2008, 08:13 PM
Regardless Raistlin, the masses voted for Obama because of his "Change" campaign and the fact that he is black. They could care less about any other item than those 2. Hell look at that Howard stern deal, the people they questioned didn't even have a clue what his positions were.

Raistlin
11-08-2008, 08:33 PM
Even among the dumbest Americans, the vast majority of people would not knowingly vote for a Socialist, much less one who is allied with every category of anti-American. If the media had made the public aware of Obama's membership in the New Party, and his numerous other alliances, he would have lost a lot of votes.

Aberrant
11-08-2008, 09:21 PM
Do you honestly think that those that are not smart enough to look into the candidates actually pay attention to the news? That would take too much time away from their video games and music videos.

Raistlin
11-08-2008, 09:34 PM
Do you honestly think that those that are not smart enough to look into the candidates actually pay attention to the news?

Not all, but the mainstream media touches far more people than the 3% margin of victory in this race.

Belphegor
11-08-2008, 09:43 PM
Not all, but the mainstream media touches far more people than the 3% margin of victory in this race.Keep in mind, it wasn't 3% for electoral votes. What states have more electorals? The ones with more population. Higher population, generally means cities. Who out numbers who in the cities? Blacks. GG NO RE

Raistlin
11-08-2008, 10:08 PM
We are still talking about a much smaller margin than the approximately 80% of people who would not knowingly vote for a Socialist.

Belphegor
11-08-2008, 10:36 PM
What makes you think half of them knows what that is? Most the black people Ive encountered brag about Obama, scream his name etc etc, and know nothing about any of his stances on politics. I encountered two just leaving my precinct who yelled Obama looking at me in the face, and I just smiled and continued through.

Raistlin
11-08-2008, 10:53 PM
There are always fringe idiots, but I don't know anyone who couldn't tell you what Socialism is.

Mookster
11-09-2008, 12:15 AM
Socialism has a very broad spectrum, and each end of that spectrum is almost indefinable by the other.

Aberrant
11-09-2008, 01:02 AM
Belph is right on with the city angle. That is the first thing I thought as well when I saw the electoral counts. Higher the pop, more electoral votes. None of the black people in any of the inner cities gave a **** about the politics, all they cared is that a black man was going to be in the white house. The man could have gotten up there and said exactly what his relationships with all of the people you mentioned were, and 90% of the electoral votes he got would have still gone to him. It was like the peanuts teacher, waa waa waa waa waa look at me I am a black man running for president waa waa waa waa waa. I seriously doubt there would have been anything he said that would have changed the outcome.

Otaku
11-09-2008, 07:01 AM
There are always fringe idiots, but I don't know anyone who couldn't tell you what Socialism is.

I only know a few people who COULD tell me what socialism is: my parents (political moderates, voted for Obama, and if you tell me that the media told them who to vote for...:lol:...oh, and we're in the income bracket that Obama said he would raise taxes on), my AP US government teacher (voted for Obama, has stated multiple times that she would not vote for a socialist, and researched the **** out of both candidates), and...that's about it. Wait, there are also a couple of kids in my grade who could tell you what socialism is, they all did their research, and - guess what? - they voted for Obama.

In conclusion: everyone I know that could tell me what socialism is voted for Obama.

Raistlin
11-09-2008, 01:13 PM
Socialism has a very broad spectrum, and each end of that spectrum is almost indefinable by the other.

Sure, it varies, especially in level of implementation. But it is still a system which stands at odds with our way of life and one that the vast majority of Americans do not believe in.


None of the black people in any of the inner cities gave a **** about the politics, all they cared is that a black man was going to be in the white house. The man could have gotten up there and said exactly what his relationships with all of the people you mentioned were, and 90% of the electoral votes he got would have still gone to him.

The black vote is not nearly enough to carry a president if the rest of the country isn't voting for him because they know he is a Socialist and an ally of anti-Americans. It took the country being unaware of these facts for Obama to win the election.


I only know a few people who COULD tell me what socialism is

Then you have a lot of stupid friends.


my parents (political moderates, voted for Obama, and if you tell me that the media told them who to vote for...

Do they know about each of Obama's long-standing anti-American alliances and his membership in a Socialist group? If not, then their vote for him was indeed based on the media's failure to inform them of these facts.


my AP US government teacher (voted for Obama, has stated multiple times that she would not vote for a socialist, and researched the **** out of both candidates)

Apparently she didn't research the **** out of them, since you are telling me that she said she would not vote for a Socialist and then she turned around and did exactly that.


Wait, there are also a couple of kids in my grade who could tell you what socialism is

Jesus.


In conclusion: everyone I know that could tell me what socialism is voted for Obama.

In one case, you don't address whether they know Obama is a Socialist. In another case, you specifically reveal that the person does not know Obama is a Socialist. And in the final case, you reveal that your classmates are ignorant of history and that there are only a couple you would consider smart enough to know what Socialism is - and they voted for Obama, so this must prove your point.

Not only is this anecdotal evidence, it is very weak anecdotal evidence. In addition, you seem to be only providing evidence towards the conclusion that everyone you know who knows what Socialism is voted for Obama - which is beside the point of whether they knew that OBAMA is a Socialist and voted for him anyway.

And pause for a moment to think about your argument here. I am arguing that the media's failure to inform the public about Obama's Socialist affiliation, and his plethora of anti-American alliances, saved him from a tidy defeat in this election. Your response is that you don't think Americans know what Socialism is anyway. But there is a gaping flaw in your argument - those ignorant of Socialism would have been quickly informed had the media covered Obama's Socialist affiliation appropriately thoroughly. For people who don't know about Socialism, it would have been a history lesson in addition to the political revelation it would have been to the rest of the country.

Belphegor
11-09-2008, 02:09 PM
The black vote is not nearly enough to carry a president if the rest of the country isn't voting for him because they know he is a Socialist and an ally of anti-Americans. It took the country being unaware of these facts for Obama to win the election.The black vote is only 14% of America, of which your lucky if 8% voted. But in a city like Philidelphia, it was 78% of the vote, of which 62% voted. Less then half the whites eligible voted there as well. This is one example, of the same issue in Dallas(even though rep took TX), LA, NY, Boston and a few other major cities had occur.


Then you have a lot of stupid friends.

This is my point, and Im starting to think you fit into them for ignorence. America isn't smart. We are very stupid, dull, and well under-informed. We choose to be that way. Why do you think the tides turned on Sara Palin so fast? At first everybody was like "ohh yea, I can relate to her, shes just like me!". Two weeks after she started speaking publicly, and to the press, everyone turned they're heads and said "Oh shes not like me!". Because America finally found one person dumber then they are.

Raistlin
11-09-2008, 02:25 PM
The black vote is only 14% of America, of which your lucky if 8% voted. But in a city like Philidelphia, it was 78% of the vote, of which 62% voted. Less then half the whites eligible voted there as well. This is one example, of the same issue in Dallas(even though rep took TX), LA, NY, Boston and a few other major cities had occur.

Enough that the black vote would have carried the election on its own, in absence of support among most of the public that would not knowingly vote for a Socialist?


This is my point, and Im starting to think you fit into them for ignorence.

Don't kid yourself. And if you're going to call someone ignorant, it's best to spell it correctly.


America isn't smart. We are very stupid, dull, and well under-informed. We choose to be that way.

Millions upon millions of people in this country blindly accept the information that is presented to them by the mainstream media. Yes, that is their fault. No, that doesn't excuse the media from their blatant, intentional neglect to present newsworthy information to the public.


Why do you think the tides turned on Sara Palin so fast?

Because the media covered anything and everything they could find on Palin - daughter pregnant?.. candidate's family being outfitted in nice clothes for a major event?.. said something stupid in an interview (I guess I should start laying out the Biden quotes...)? - with precisely the kind of ferocity they should have been covering Obama's anti-American alliances and history with.

Shin666
11-09-2008, 10:27 PM
Enough that the black vote would have carried the election on its own, in absence of support among most of the public that would not knowingly vote for a Socialist?


The black vote is not nearly enough to carry a president if the rest of the country isn't voting for him because they know he is a Socialist and an ally of anti-Americans. It took the country being unaware of these facts for Obama to win the election.

lolwut.. Contradictory statement, or contradictory question?


Millions upon millions of people in this country blindly accept the information that is presented to them by the mainstream media. Yes, that is their fault. No, that doesn't excuse the media from their blatant, intentional neglect to present newsworthy information to the public.

So Americans in general are ignorant and dumb. Big deal, stop whining about it...

All in all, i don't see the reason why you're trolling (and yes i do mean trolling) besides the fact that your choice in candidacy lost the election (assuming you even voted for him) to which i have to say tough break. Get over it, watch the events unfold, and bide your time until the next election comes around, or until obama messes up to a point where you can say "I told you so." The man hasn't even been sworn into office yet.

Personally i believe we do infact need a shift towards socialism, if not for the fact that when peoples liberties start evaporating, then people need to wake up and take a look around them so they realize what they had when it's gone.

Belphegor
11-10-2008, 07:45 AM
Yea. Local ordinances were pressed down through a federal level, to remove Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin signs, or be subjected to fines. This in my opinion, goes against our rights. I love being the new Russian police state.

Aberrant
11-10-2008, 09:04 AM
Where were the signs that had to be removed?

Belphegor
11-10-2008, 11:41 AM
The general ticket signs, just show support for your party. The only thing that's ever really on them is the names.

Deg™
11-10-2008, 11:51 AM
Campaign signs have always had to be removed in a timely manner. It's annoying to see them AFTER an election.

Belphegor
11-10-2008, 12:41 PM
That's like making reality company's remove they're for sale signs after the house is sold, which they aren't. So I don't see the equality.

Deg™
11-10-2008, 01:03 PM
Funny, i didn't hear anyone complaining about that law four years ago, or eight for that matter.

Nobody likes gloaters.

CrazyGerbilEater
11-10-2008, 01:24 PM
more like some of us would like to forget that obama is going to be president, in fact, some of us want to ignore the entire election, and pretend that there wasn't one. We're still waiting for one.

Belphegor
11-10-2008, 01:34 PM
Surprisingly, its about the McCain/Palin signs more so in most rural PA areas. I think if someone like Raistlin wants to still show them support, that they should have won it should be ok. But to hand out fines, a week after the elections is ****ed up in my opinion. My neighbor was on vacation 3 days before elections, and just got back last night, with a 900$ ordinance fine in her mail box.

Otaku
11-10-2008, 02:50 PM
Do they know about each of Obama's long-standing anti-American alliances and his membership in a Socialist group? If not, then their vote for him was indeed based on the media's failure to inform them of these facts.

And they watch Fox News exclusively, too, or at least I know my dad does. This election is the only one that he has ever not voted Republican.


Apparently she didn't research the **** out of them, since you are telling me that she said she would not vote for a Socialist and then she turned around and did exactly that.

In response to that, and pretty much the rest of your post: Yeah, because your conclusion is the only conclusion someone could possibly reach if they were really informed! :faint:

I will be sure to ask my teacher what she says in response to your comments about her tomorrow morning.

Also, a quick google search turned this up, from a conservative magazine called Human Events.

Is Obama A Socialist? Not if You Ask One - HUMAN EVENTS (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28645)

Stewie
11-10-2008, 03:18 PM
If Obama screws up once during his term I'm not going to vote for him again, not that it matters anyway.

BTW:America getting free healthcare means the same poor quality healthcare for everybody.

Raistlin
11-10-2008, 05:26 PM
lolwut.. Contradictory statement, or contradictory question?

Explain the contradiction.


Big deal, stop whining about it...

Nah.


All in all, i don't see the reason why you're trolling (and yes i do mean trolling) besides the fact that your choice in candidacy lost the election (assuming you even voted for him) to which i have to say tough break. Get over it, watch the events unfold, and bide your time until the next election comes around, or until obama messes up to a point where you can say "I told you so." The man hasn't even been sworn into office yet.

This isn't a wait and see situation. The man is a Socialist and an ally of anti-Americans. That he was even able to get into politics, much less rise to the very top to rule our country, is ****ed up any way you slice it. You are entitled to believe it doesn't matter, like I am entitled to be realistic.


Personally i believe we do infact need a shift towards socialism, if not for the fact that when peoples liberties start evaporating

If you want to see people's liberties evaporating, pay attention over the next four to eight years as a Socialist regime works its magic from within our own government.


And they watch Fox News exclusively, too, or at least I know my dad does. This election is the only one that he has ever not voted Republican.

Do they know about his membership in a Socialist group, and his numerous long-term anti-American alliances, or not?


In response to that, and pretty much the rest of your post: Yeah, because your conclusion is the only conclusion someone could possibly reach if they were really informed!

Well, what were you saying exactly? Were you saying that she said she wouldn't vote for a Socialist, but then she did vote for him, even though it bothered her that he is a Socialist? Or were you saying that she said she wouldn't vote for a Socialist, but then she did vote for him, because she didn't know that he is a Socialist?

Because he is, for a fact. Does she know or not?


Also, a quick google search turned this up, from a conservative magazine called Human Events.

Obama is a Socialist, both in affiliation (not just his long-term allies, he himself is a New Party member) and in his policy stances.

Belphegor
11-10-2008, 08:16 PM
Obama is a Socialist, both in affiliation (not just his long-term allies, he himself is a New Party member) and in his policy stances.I have to agree with the article Otaku posted. As I said before, his policies arent so much socialism, as they just don't work. True socialism doesn't reduce taxes for one class, and raise them on another. Please find me a socialist country which does this, of the many now out there.

Like I also said before, we receive the negatives of socialism every year, as we become more and more like Soviet Russia in the 80's, which we tried so hard to fight. But we are, republican lead, or democratic, or even in your case "New Party", we are still moving forward more police state policies, ideals and regime.

Raistlin
11-10-2008, 08:45 PM
Your desire to believe what the article tells you notwithstanding, the man is a card-carrying Socialist who openly talks about "spreading the wealth", and his policies reflect his beliefs.

Belphegor
11-10-2008, 08:55 PM
Ill refer to what you previously said, to counter your current statement.


Sure, it varies, especially in level of implementation. But it is still a system which stands at odds with our way of life and one that the vast majority of Americans do not believe in.

Raistlin
11-10-2008, 09:20 PM
Note the second quoted sentence.

Belphegor
11-10-2008, 10:53 PM
Didn't I say his methods still do not work? Your second sentence merely agrees with me, doesn't deflect it. There is still various levels of socialism, whether we agree to it or not. Personally, Obama is terrible by any large socialism standards, like Sweden, Russia, or the Netherlands.

Since your so big on how the public was misinformed of Obama, let me show you how we can also assess this from John McCain.

There are several things that make it extremely difficult to assess the character of someone else, especially when that person is running for high public office. Their personalities may change over time; different circumstances may allow us to see things about them we hadn't noticed before; they may have deliberately projected a false image of themselves; the acuteness of our perception and the accuracy of our judgment may improve.

I once admired John McCain as a man of principle and honor. He had become emblematic of someone who spoke his mind, voted his conscience, and demonstrated courage in bucking his own party and fighting for what he believed in. He gained a well-deserved reputation as a maverick. He was seen as taking principled positions on such issues as tax equity (opposing the newly elected Bush's tax cut), fighting political corruption, and, later, taking on the Bush administration on torture. He came off as a man of decency. He took political risks.

I'm guessing not many people, if any here at all, ever read McCain's 2002 memoir "Worth the Fighting For", quoted directly: "I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. ... In truth, I'd had the ambition for a long time."

This admission suggests his motives were cynically opportunistic all along. Now I and hundreds of thousands of others see him very differently. Ill put it this way, McCain's recent conduct of his campaign, being willing to lie repeatedly (including in his acceptance speech) and to play Russian roulette with the vice-presidency, in order to fulfill his long held ambition, has reinforced my growing sense that John McCain is not a principled man. In fact, it's not clear who he is.

In 2006, McCain supported a compromise with the Bush administration on trials of Guantanamo detainees, abandoning his former principled position, yielding too much to the administration and accepting provisions he had originally opposed. The new bill limited the rights of detainees in military trials, stripped habeas corpus rights and loosened restrictions on the administration's use of torture.

Even though the Supreme Court later declared these measures unconstitutional, McCain's caving in to this "compromise" was for me, further evidence that the former free-spirited, supposedly principled, maverick was morphing into just another panderer, to Bush and the Republican Party's conservative base.

Also if the media has made you truly aware, "Make-Believe Maverick" by Tim Dickinson in the Rolling Stone mid October thoroughly de-mythologized McCain's military career. McCain tried perilously and unsuccessfully to exceed his father's modest accomplishments and to rival those of his distinguished grandfather. He was a lousy pilot (far worse than Bush) who crashed plane after plane. After several reports of interviews with McCain's fellow POWs in Vietnam and later friends and colleagues who knew him well, I can conclude along with this quotation from Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar under President Bush, "I'm sure John McCain loves his country. But loving your country and lying to the American people are apparently not inconsistent in his view."

McCain was not only a lousy student, he had his father's taste for drink and a darkly misogynistic streak. The summer after his sophomore year, cruising with a friend near Arlington, McCain tried to pick up a pair of young women. When they laughed at him, he cursed them so vilely that he was hauled into court on a profanity charge.

Raistlin
11-11-2008, 01:27 PM
Didn't I say his methods still do not work? Your second sentence merely agrees with me, doesn't deflect it.You presented the quote as if it was disproving something I said earlier, when in fact the second sentence of the quote clearly reveals that I was making the same point then that I have been making all along.


being willing to lie repeatedlyAll politicians lie. McCain is pretty mellow in that regard when you consider that his opponent's lies involved covering up a lifelong history of anti-American alliances while trying to take the presidency of the United States of America.


and to play Russian roulette with the vice-presidencyA garbage point. Palin had as much experience as Obama (arguably more) and she was at the bottom of the Republican ticket while Obama was at the top of the Democratic ticket. The complaints about her experience, by people who simultaneously supported the most blatantly inexperienced presidential candidate ever, were intellectually dishonest to say the least.


I can conclude along with this quotation from Richard ClarkeRichard Clarke's opinion doesn't mean a whole lot to me.


Tim Dickinson in the Rolling Stone mid October thoroughly de-mythologized McCain's military career.... Rolling Stone?


McCain tried perilously and unsuccessfully to exceed his father's modest accomplishments and to rival those of his distinguished grandfather.What an evil man.

You are reaching pretty far here. McCain was a poor student? A man with personal ambition? He cursed at a woman?

Now think about this for a moment. If you took each of the complaints you have listed about John McCain, and turned all of them into serious long-term anti-American alliances, and then added in a few more anti-American alliances for good measure, you would literally be looking at Obama's life history.

Belphegor
11-11-2008, 05:33 PM
You presented the quote as if it was disproving something I said earlier, when in fact the second sentence of the quote clearly reveals that I was making the same point then that I have been making all along.You still haven't proven to me how its the media's fault McCain lost, which is what you started arguing.


All politicians lie. McCain is pretty mellow in that regard when you consider that his opponent's lies involved covering up a lifelong history of anti-American alliances while trying to take the presidency of the United States of America.No **** all politicians lie, but two wrongs never make a right. One lie is just as bad as the other, and they're both guilty of it. Get over it.


A garbage point. Palin had as much experience as Obama (arguably more) and she was at the bottom of the Republican ticket while Obama was at the top of the Democratic ticket. The complaints about her experience, by people who simultaneously supported the most blatantly inexperienced presidential candidate ever, were intellectually dishonest to say the least.I never said she wasn't inexperienced, you seem to be the one to be worrying about her experience. I merely ask why the majority of the GOP felt there were a half dozen other female choices McCain could of made, which vastly would of had a much more unionized support. Good job pointing out she is somewhat inexperienced though, and everyone knew Obama was.


Richard Clarke's opinion doesn't mean a whole lot to me.Doesn't change the fact it's once again another instance of his party speaking out against him. I'm beginning to wonder how they ever nominated him.


... Rolling Stone?And? If you've read the article it was a collaboration of quotes from his fellow POW's from different media crews drawing they're opinion of McCain, since they had a chance to know him better then most people ever will. You claim the media hidden stuff solely for Obama, but yet I never once seen one of the dozen articles on CNNLive, MSNBC, Fox or any news station to be truthful.


What an evil man.No, it shows an immature one. You make your own destiny, not try to beat someone else. I ask you to refer to his personal memoirs of why he wanted to become president to explain my statement further.


You are reaching pretty far here. McCain was a poor student? A man with personal ambition? He cursed at a woman?I'm reaching nowhere. McCain has always showed a level of respect in the public eye, for everyone around him. Yet you may find instances where he blatantly loses control, and lashes out. Yes, this is all fine and dandy, as everyone does this. However the president of the US, doesn't need to have a PMS trip and tell the UN to **** off like Bush did.


Now think about this for a moment. If you took each of the complaints you have listed about John McCain, and turned all of them into serious long-term anti-American alliances, and then added in a few more anti-American alliances for good measure, you would literally be looking at Obama's life history.Your anti-American alliances hold no weight with me, considering Im currently anti-American to the way we're governing ourselves anyway. And I know a ton of other people who could tell you the same, including military personal, active and stationary.

Raistlin
11-12-2008, 04:48 PM
You still haven't proven to me how its the media's fault McCain lost

I am stating a simple fact. The vast majority of the public would not knowingly vote for a Socialist and an ally of anti-Americans. If you don't believe that, go ask a few random people.


No **** all politicians lie, but two wrongs never make a right. One lie is just as bad as the other, and they're both guilty of it. Get over it.All politicians lie - but most are not Socialists and allies of anti-Americans, lying about their affiliation while trying to take over our government. There is a difference, whether you are capable of seeing it or not.


I never said she wasn't inexperiencedYou said McCain was playing Russian roulette with his VP pick, which I took for a jab at her experience level.


And? If you've read the article it was a collaboration of quotes from his fellow POW'sMany of whom were angered when McCain led on the normalization of relations with Vietnam. In fact, entire groups of them sprang up during the 90s. This isn't a surprise.


No, it shows an immature one. You make your own destiny, not try to beat someone else.You make your own destiny? Or do you cozy up to criminal slumlords, unrepentant domestic terrorists, Socialist groups, and every other type of anti-American scumbag you could list - and have them propel you into power while blatantly lying about these alliances to the American people?


I'm reaching nowhere. McCain has always showed a level of respect in the public eye, for everyone around him. Yet you may find instances where he blatantly loses control, and lashes out. Yes, this is all fine and dandy, as everyone does this. However the president of the US... can NOT be an ally of anti-Americans of every kind. This is NOT fine and dandy, and everyone does not do this.


Your anti-American alliances hold no weight with me, considering Im currently anti-American to the way we're governing ourselves anyway.You might be "currently anti-American to the way we're governing ourselves", but they are anti-American and anti-capitalism in general.

Redlemon
11-12-2008, 06:39 PM
Today was a great day in American history.
I agree with that so, so, so much

earthful
11-20-2008, 04:02 PM
Also, the amount we're spending on Iraq is more money then was spent on the medical system in the last 200 years.

Niiice? You are SO wrong..... the American-Iraq war only cost us about 4.2 Trillion dollars so far. The health care costs USA over 3/4 Trillion Dollars annually while 50% of that costs is because of fat Americans and diabetes.
In fact, more than 90% of diabetes are related to obesity.

Don't criticize me, those are REAL stats I got off internet.
Don't criticize the internet either because it is full of information.
Don't criticize the information because you don't know if its real or not.
Don't.... just don't even say anything.

Belphegor
11-20-2008, 04:43 PM
Niiice? You are SO wrong..... the American-Iraq war only cost us about 4.2 Trillion dollars so far. The health care costs USA over 3/4 Trillion Dollars annually while 50% of that costs is because of fat Americans and diabetes.
In fact, more than 90% of diabetes are related to obesity.

Don't criticize me, those are REAL stats I got off internet.
Don't criticize the internet either because it is full of information.
Don't criticize the information because you don't know if its real or not.
Don't.... just don't even say anything.Your exactly right. Except for we're not socialist are we? You didn't pay anything, the person did. :rolleyes:


And if you didn't catch the sarcasm, I'm referring to the idea we already do spend money for it. Why not get our quality from it at least.