Why can Barack Obama not pass a simple security check?

[susanqy]

Who becomes president are the same, of course, Obama is a breakthrough,because he has the brain

[sitetutor]

Originally Posted by susanqy

Who becomes president are the same, of course, Obama is a breakthrough,because he has the brain

Have you even looked at what McCain has spoken about to end the economic downturn?
I am not hopeful to reach people like you who have their minds made up already, but those who are still trying to decide who is best for the United STates for the next 4 years.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by sitetutor

Ferre and Zap
Both of you have said some very disturbing things.
Neither ones of you vote in the U.S., but there are Americans who feel the same way.
Both of you have in the past expressed extreme animosity towards the Bush administration.

Maybe we've brought up some disturbing topics because they are disturbing and it's something you should take a look at.
I don't vote in the US. Neither do you. But I believe that you and I share a common interest in the US and world affairs. What happens in the US affects everyone in the world. So, although I have no vote in the US, I certainly have a stake in the outcome.

Originally Posted by sitetutor

Hitler got elected for the same reason Obama has a shot. People had so much anger towards the old government, they closed their eyes and ignored the warning signs.
Have you ever heard the saying "Never make a decision in anger!"?
or
"You are who you hang with!"?
Look at the people Mr. Obama is close to and tell me that this is unimportant.
A wife who doesn't like her own nation, a pastor who preaches to hate it, a guy who bombed it and an organization which doesn't respect one of it's most sacred processes.
Yet both of you downplay it.
Maybe you guys think "Oh well, I won't be voting anyways, so who cares", but this is crucial.
This is not "pay Bush back day", this is about the next 4 years of the world we are speaking about!

Indeed. See above. You seem to think I'm for Obama. That's wrong.
I don't see much difference between Obama and McCain. They both serve special interests and not the American people. They are both just puppets, controlled by the exact same puppeteers. And, these puppeteers just love it when guys like you and Bob Barr are so vehemently opposed to Obama because you are distracted from the fact that a vote for either the Democrats or the Republicans means four more years of the exact same bullshit.
If you want to take any message from my posts it's that this is real. It is important. So stop fighting like children with Obama supporters and find out what they want. Find out what they really want. And then take whatever common ground both sides have and work on taking the country back from the elite power brokers who control both sides. Obama and McCain both have things they they are not proud of within their campaign but as long as both sides keep nitpicking at the other side, the American people will always lose.

The US is a divided nation, heading down a dangerous path. It's dangerous for all of us. I don't want to see that. And, although I can't speak out of turn for Ferre, it seems to me like he feels the same way.

[Bob Barr]

Sorry to disagree, but I don't consider it nitpicking to oppose a candidate who has had long-term associations with a virulently racist pastor, a self-admitted unrepentant domestic terrorist, and the premier voting-fraud perpetrator in the US. The company with whom a man chooses to associate himself reveals a great deal about the man himself.

And these associations are in addition to fundamental policy differences which would never allow me to vote for Obama. The man is a socialist. For that reason alone, I'd oppose him even if he had never heard of Wright, Ayers, or ACORN.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by sitetutor

Hitler got elected for the same reason Obama has a shot. People had so much anger towards the old government, they closed their eyes and ignored the warning signs...

...Have you ever heard the saying "Never make a decision in anger!"?
or
"You are who you hang with!"?

Hmm, this is exactly how Bush got in... funny, er no, horrifying. You guys hang with Dubya. Uh-huh.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by Bob Barr

Sorry to disagree, but I don't consider it nitpicking to oppose a candidate who has had long-term associations with a virulently racist pastor, a self-admitted unrepentant domestic terrorist, and the premier voting-fraud perpetrator in the US. The company with whom a man chooses to associate himself reveals a great deal about the man himself.

And these associations are in addition to fundamental policy differences which would never allow me to vote for Obama. The man is a socialist. For that reason alone, I'd oppose him even if he had never heard of Wright, Ayers, or ACORN.

Yet you back McCain, also in favour of the socialist plan to bailout Wall street with your money.
How do you rationalize that one?
(This should be good)

As an aside, Bob, do you honestly believe in your heart of hearts that if McCain wins the election that you'll wake up to Utopia on November 5th?
Do you believe that you'll wake up and be miles ahead of where you would have been if Obama had won? Is McCain truly worthy of your vote, or just not as bad as Obama?

[Bob Barr]

Originally Posted by Zap

Yet you back McCain, also in favour of the socialist plan to bailout Wall street with your money.
How do you rationalize that one?
(This should be good)

You're implying that I must agree 100% with everything McCain does. That just isn't the case.

As an aside, Bob, do you honestly believe in your heart of hearts that if McCain wins the election that you'll wake up to Utopia on November 5th?

Of course not. Did I ever claim that it would be that way? Stop fantasizing.

Besides which, he would take office in January. Utopia couldn't start until then.

Do you believe that you'll wake up and be miles ahead of where you would have been if Obama had won? Is McCain truly worthy of your vote, or just not as bad as Obama?

Miles ahead? Probably not but at least going in the right direction rather than the wrong one. Yes, McCain is worthy of my vote. Like with GWB, I do have specific differences with his policies on a number of points. Those differences won't keep me from voting for him, though.

[Mia]

Originally Posted by Bob Barr

You're implying that I must agree 100% with everything McCain does. That just isn't the case.


Of course not. Did I ever claim that it would be that way? Stop fantasizing.

Besides which, he would take office in January. Utopia couldn't start until then.


Miles ahead? Probably not but at least going in the right direction rather than the wrong one. Yes, McCain is worthy of my vote. Like with GWB, I do have specific differences with his policies on a number of points. Those differences won't keep me from voting for him, though.

This is the one thing the liberal mind cannot comprehend. Those of us on the right have our own minds, make up our own minds and are not party followers, but leaders with our own individual thoughts, wants and minds.

We don't just blindly follow the pack like those on the left do. We don't agree with everything the party says, or a particular candidate says. We don't have PACs and Unions telling us how to think, much less how to vote.

Its the fundamental difference between us.

[pctec]

hehehe

I just read a few pages of this thread and now I realize why wars are waged...
Politicians and political issues simply heats people up to the point where they want to kill each other

I have to go kiss my wife and daughter now

[Mia]

Originally Posted by pctec

hehehe

I just read a few pages of this thread and now I realize why wars are waged...
Politicians and political issues simply heats people up to the point where they want to kill each other

I have to go kiss my wife and daughter now

I don't see anyone heated up, or on the war path here.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by Bob Barr

You're implying that I must agree 100% with everything McCain does. That just isn't the case.

I'm not implying anything of the sort.
You said "The man is a socialist. For that reason alone, I'd oppose him even if he had never heard of Wright, Ayers, or ACORN."
McCain backed the socialist 700 billion bailout plan.
To the letter of your own quote, you should oppose him.

This isn't some "liberal mind that can't comprehend". I comprehend your words very well. It seems that you don't, though, if you support McCain.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that you were "blindly follow the pack like those on the left do". Except, of course, you're on the right side, politically.

[Bob Barr]

Originally Posted by Zap

I'm not implying anything of the sort.
You said "The man is a socialist. For that reason alone, I'd oppose him even if he had never heard of Wright, Ayers, or ACORN."
McCain backed the socialist 700 billion bailout plan.
To the letter of your own quote, you should oppose him.

This isn't some "liberal mind that can't comprehend". I comprehend your words very well. It seems that you don't, though, if you support McCain.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that you were "blindly follow the pack like those on the left do". Except, of course, you're on the right side, politically.

Doing something that some would describe as socialist, such as you've described the bailout, doesn't make one a socialist.

I don't base my assessments on a single data point.

McCain has never been a member nor had the support of any organization that's the least bit socialist. Obama was a member of the New Party (radical socialists) early in his political career and has had the support of the Democrat Socialists of America throughout his career.

McCain once gave a speech at an event co-sponsored by ACORN. Obama has been closely associated with ACORN for many years in various capacities. Now that Obama is taking heat for his ACORN association, his defenders are pointing to McCain's speech as proof that "it's all the same". It's not. In fact, it's not even close.

McCain got political endorsements from two radical pastors. Obama belonged to the church of a virulent, anti-American racist for about twenty years. Again, Obama's defenders try to equate the two. They're not even remotely similar.

[ranter]

Bob,

Something that you said "a virulently racist pastor"

I lost you here. Can you explain to me, what exactly did you meant by that?

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by ranter

Bob,

Something that you said "a virulently racist pastor"

I lost you here. Can you explain to me, what exactly did you meant by that?

I think he means that the millions of people who attended churches run by convicted pedophiles can be hold accountable for being supportive to pedophilia too.

[Bob Barr]

Originally Posted by ranter

Bob,

Something that you said "a virulently racist pastor"

I lost you here. Can you explain to me, what exactly did you meant by that?

I'd have to presume that you've never seen DVDs (which were sold in the church's bookstore) of Wright referring to the US as "the U. S. of KKK" and calling on God not to bless America but to, and I quote, "God Damn America".

Rev. Jeremiah Wright subscribes to the Black Liberation Theology teachings of Dr. James Cone. One of those teachings is that any God who doesn't uplift blacks and destroy whites shouldn't be considered really to be God and should be rejected.

Modern American origins of contemporary black liberation theology can be traced to July 31, 1966, when an ad hoc group of 51 black pastors, calling themselves the National Committee of Negro Churchmen (NCNC), bought a full page ad in the New York Times to publish their "Black Power Statement," which proposed a more aggressive approach to combating racism using the Bible for inspiration.[1]

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright was introduced to black liberation theology at University of Chicago's Divinity School. Wright would cite the works of James Cone and Dwight Hopkins who are considered the leading theologians of this system of belief, although now there are many scholars who have contributed a great deal to the field. Wright built up Trinity United Church of Christ with a vision statement based on the theology laid out by James Cone[2][3] Asked in an interview which church most embodied his message, Cone replied "I would point to that church (Trinity) first. [4]

Wright claimed that criticism of his theology constituted an attack on the black church, although probably no more than a quarter of black pastors today would describe their own theology as liberationist[5]. Trinity United Church of Christ is one of the few that specifically incorporates black liberation theology into its vision statement[6][7][8] The press reported that candidate Obama publicly rejected Wright, "decrying his...latest remarks as 'a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth.'"[9]

Yeah, Obama did that -- after having sat in the man's pews for about twenty years.

"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is particip