quote:

Originally posted by SacraficialMetal:
....again going back to the thread topic that you started....what did his people do that reagan's didn't during the '80 election?

The thread topic was about Obama and the person's he with whom he associates/hires.

militia,

The problem is Obama has no real record to run off of, therefore there is little substance. He got elected in 2003-2004? And for about the last year he has been campaigning. He has very few votes and as John Edwards said, about 100 "present". Kind of hard to get challenged on your record when there isn't really one there.

quote:

Originally posted by militia1:
Whats really beginning to piss me off is how everything is now discussed by race. The media reports every night, how much of the "black" vote the man carried. I couldnt care less about that. Why cant we report how much of the "vote" the man had. Does it really matter what color the voters were?

Then there are those who would take the above quotes and justify them. Had a "white" man said the same things, we wouldnt even be having this conversation. But its justified for a potential future president to state that he was "wary" of someone because he was "WHITE". Stop with the race crap for christ sake and lets move on to something with some substance.

T

Had any white person made the comments that have come from Jeremiah Wright or Obamas wife he would have been run out of town. Had he been a Republican his political career would be over.

Just as some say we should question the war in Iraq, 9/11, etc..etc...there are those of us who question the beliefs of BHO.

quote:

Originally posted by SacraficialMetal:
please point out the racist portions of the quotes......

quote 1, can you not pick good attributes from someone you admire without being put into the same box as that person? can you admire thomas jefferson for what he did without taking into account that he was a slave owner that fathered children with his black mistress?

quote 2, if it was a white person speaking about their frat on campus would that be labeled racist?

quote 3, if i read it right....no matter what good a person does, there are those that point out what they fear about the person.....

here's a question have you actually read his book or are you just relying on same think ppl to tell you what to think

neither jeremiah wright or his wife is running for president.......mccain has excepted the endorsement from some pretty shady pasters....his political career seems to be doing alright.....

Infantry,

McCain's "spiritual advisor" recently stated that it is America's divine destiny (I'm paraphrasing) to destroy Islam, yet the media is strangely silent. So your theory is wrong. Thanks for playing

quote:

Originally posted by EMC_:

quote:

Originally posted by SacraficialMetal:
....again going back to the thread topic that you started....what did his people do that reagan's didn't during the '80 election?

The thread topic was about Obama and the person's he with whom he associates/hires.

Converations often veer off course. Don't worry. It'll be ok.

quote:

Originally posted by EMC_:The thread topic was about Obama and the person's he with whom he associates/hires.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90KV46O0&show_article=1

i wonder how much time the liberal media will spend on this........

quote:

Originally posted by FourString:

quote:

Originally posted by EMC_:

quote:

Originally posted by SacraficialMetal:
....again going back to the thread topic that you started....what did his people do that reagan's didn't during the '80 election?

The thread topic was about Obama and the person's he with whom he associates/hires.

Converations often veer off course. Don't worry. It'll be ok.

am well aware that when an argument can't be made and hyprocracy shown......the ole shift the discussion takes place;

his ppl went and talked to hamas
then
he's a bigot
then
it's who he's seen around

quote:

McCain's "spiritual advisor" recently stated that it is America's divine destiny (I'm paraphrasing) to destroy Islam, yet the media is strangely silent. So your theory is wrong. Thanks for playing

I believe it was "destroy RADICAL Islam". Funny how when one little word gets dropped it changes the entire meaning. Nice try though. Thanks for your continued liberal spin.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mazski9,

So there is no more confusion...

"I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."
- Rod Parsley in Silent No More

Someone should get this guy a copy of the Constitution, he obviously has never read it.

quote:

The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

Radical Islam

Radical Islam ... Right Wing Loonies ... what's the difference? Both want to deprive everybody of life, liberty and your inalienable rights.

Here is a big difference. Radical Right Wingers as you call them ( I know what you menat) do not chop of peoples' heads and then parade them around on Al-Jazeera TV for all to see or the internet for that matter.

quote:

Originally posted by SociallyAutistic:
Radical Islam ... Right Wing Loonies ... what's the difference? Both want to deprive everybody of life, liberty and your inalienable rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Mazski9:

quote:

The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

Radical Islam

It is not the United States responsibility, or "divine purpose" to rid the world of anything. They can be radical all they want, as long as they do it over there.

Oh right ... Right Wing Loonies are far more civilized.

quote:

Between the years of 1972 and 1991, approximately 135 African-American men and women were arrested and tortured at the hands of former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge and officers under his command at Area 2 police headquarters. Some of these victims were as young as thirteen years old. Various court cases have established that the methods of torture used in the interrogation of suspects included electric shock to the ears and genitalia, mock executions, suffocation, and burning. While Jon Burge was ultimately fired by the Chicago Police Department, not a single perpetrator of the tortures has ever been criminally prosecuted.

quote:

They can be radical all they want, as long as they do it over there.

WOW!!!

quote:

Originally posted by SacraficialMetal:
...

am well aware that when an argument can't be made and hyprocracy shown......the ole shift the discussion takes place;

...

This statement is the best description of your approach, I've ever seen. You can't make an argument or counterpoint in support of your political party. Then you search for similar or what you believe to be similar actions by someone you do not support and claim their behavior is bad/wrong, showing your hypocrisy. Thus your ole attempt to shift of the discussion has taken place. At least you have recognized your problem, which is the first step towards a cure.

yep the DNC is so worried about losing support in this board that they pay me to post their daily talking points to sway you all......you found me out.......

quote:

Originally posted by EMC_:
This statement is the best description of your approach, I've ever seen. You can't make an argument or counterpoint in support of your political party. Then you search for similar or what you believe to be similar actions by someone you do not support and claim their behavior is bad/wrong, showing your hypocrisy. Thus your ole attempt to shift of the discussion has taken place. At least you have recognized your problem, which is the first step towards a cure.

ok here's my argument......how can you be pissed off at the Obama ppl talking to a perceived enemy of the U.S. when it's a play taken straight out of the GOP handbook?

quote:

Originally posted by SacraficialMetal:

quote:

Originally posted by EMC_:
This statement is the best description of your approach, I've ever seen. You can't make an argument or counterpoint in support of your political party. Then you search for similar or what you believe to be similar actions by someone you do not support and claim their behavior is bad/wrong, showing your hypocrisy. Thus your ole attempt to shift of the discussion has taken place. At least you have recognized your problem, which is the first step towards a cure.

ok here's my argument......how can you be pissed off at the Obama ppl talking to a perceived enemy of the U.S. when it's a play taken straight out of the GOP handbook?

1. Where did you come up with I'm pissed off at any candidate? You must have me confused with the people who are support your beliefs about politics. My first comment in this thread was prompted by Fourstrings post "Perhaps you missed the part where the Obama campaign severed ties with the advisor. What more do you want, the guy to be hanged?". How many times should a canddidate have to come out and sever ties with in most cases friends and people he works closely with? This person doesn't really fit in that catagory, but in reading the article they make it sound like he isn't really a real person, they almost deny his exsistance. Ever here the saying about protesting too much? Then as always you don't address the situation, you come up with standard DNC response of "wait look over here" see what this guy did, not what my guy did.


wasn't it presidential candidate ronald reagan who held talks with the iranians at the time they were holding U.S. hostages......in order to insure his victory.......

what's the difference........oh that's it, we found out before the election.......and you don't like Obama......


Since you are comparing Presidential Candidate Ronald Reagan's people talking with Iran while Americans were being held hostage. Here's a few questions for you. 1. How did these talks insure his victory, if we didn't know about them until after the election? 2. How many American hostages does Hamas currently hold? 3. Why don't we hear about them on the news? 4. How did the Reagan talks turn out?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: EMC_,