D6fer posted on Jun 21, 2008
| views: 221
Can you spot the lies, flip flops, and downright naive statements?
Comments
-
sheltercrow said on Jun 21, 2008....
If the choice is between Obama and that foolish old fool McCain, Obama win hands down. Old white clowns have run the country into the ground. It time the younger not-white clowns get a chance. There is the outside chance that someone on his staff may just stiffen his spine when he gets elected. -
SeanRenaud said on Jun 21, 2008....
He hasn't said anything there that isn't 100% right. The only part that is even questionable is what cuts will be made where military wise. We have more military than we've got any used for. -
sheltercrow said on Jun 21, 2008....
From McCain's Playbook: Hate, Fear and Caveman Politics
By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted June 16, 2008.
Even the briefest of surveys of the supporters gracing McCain's events underscores the kind of red-meat appeal he's making. Immediately after his speech in New Orleans, a pair of sweet-looking old ladies put down their McCain signs long enough to fill me in on why they're here. "I tell you," says one, "if Michelle Obama really doesn't like it here in America, I'd be very pleased to raise the money to send her back to Africa."
-
SeanRenaud said on Jun 21, 2008....
Michelle is a bit of a loose cannon. -
sheltercrow said on Jun 21, 2008....
Sean? You surely make foolish. -
sheltercrow said on Jun 21, 2008....
The major problem for a black man in American politics is to appear to be white too. It's not a black man's problem it's a white requirement. It's called racism. -
SeanRenaud said on Jun 21, 2008....
The major problem for a black man is distance himself from black culture. Michele is a loose cannon, that comment about the only time she's been proud of her nation wasn't brilliant. -
D6fer said on Jun 22, 2008....
so the best reason to vote for Obama is because he's black?
We havent had a terrorist attack on our own soil since 2001....that is not because they dont want to, or couldn't....it's because they know for a fact that the retaliation would be massive.........if Obama wins....we will be hit again.....just like spain got hit....they showed weakness, and they were rewarded with destruction.
gutting our defenses will be a huge mistake.
-
travelr712 said on Jun 22, 2008....
seems the obama camp has it's share of 'loose canons', no? i guess that's the definition of a liberal though, isn't it?imo, we are once again presented with the choice of the lesser of two evils, and it's hard to tell which is the lesser.although this time, it seems so far to be less the situation of two parties with just slightly different slants on the same platforms, and more two diverse platforms presented. i hope this trend continues in our political infrustructure, give us an actual choice. -
sheltercrow said on Jun 22, 2008....
It's a time of minorities. Lest you forget the 'white' nation you so emphatically embrace is a joke.
A nation that enslaved blacks? A nation that to this day admits nothing to blacks? A nation that is what dfer?
You are a poster boy for a demented past."the definition of a liberal" is a 'loose canon'? So how do you define McCain? The man is a walking political retard. A perfect man of the right? -
SeanRenaud said on Jun 22, 2008....
1. No the best reason to vote for Obama is that his stances on everything but the economy is spot on and his economy is close to impossible so it's nothing to worry about. We haven't had an attack on own soul since 2001 because there has been no need for farther attacks.Its absolutely pure speculation as to what President will cause us to be attacked and it's just as likely that having a president who will talk to our enemies might placate some and McCain's stay in Iraq erodes our goodwill world round which is actually worse than killing a few people.2. Shelter every country ever has enslaved, we're past that. Grow up. McCain a political retard? Hardly. -
dyingman said on Jun 22, 2008....
Why don't you point out teh problem you have with this and we'll go over them.
Removing our troops from a civil war would make our military and America STRONGER because we could regroup and maybe recruiting might be a lot easier when potential warriors aren't concerned they're being put in harm's way for no apparent reason.
Was withdrawal from Vietnam a crippling blow to America's military strength? Are we weaker than we were in 1974 or was that a turning point where we became mightier than ever?
-
sheltercrow said on Jun 22, 2008....
If McCain didn't have the turncoat as his watchdog he would piss in a woman toilet. -
D6fer said on Jun 22, 2008....
sheltercrow......a nation that admits nothing to blacks? are you fucking kidding me? 30 years of affirmative action? and what do we have to show for it? now we have reached the absolute pinnacle of affirmative action......Barrack Obama is the chosen one.......and we are supposed to embrace him....because he's black.....forget about the hate that surrounds him....forget about the fact that he has no credentials....has done nothing....has no legislation of his own.....but what the hell....he's not whitey.....and liberals have done such a great job of brainwashing enough white idiots into hating themselves and their own race....so I guess it's time right?
dyingman....you dont think vietnam hurt us?.......it set the example of how to defeat the U.S.....see it's simple......you use the same useful idiots that you used in vietnam to undermine the current war effort.
-
D6fer said on Jun 22, 2008....
sean....how anyone can think that Obama's stance on defense is anything but arrogant, risky and ignorant is beyond me.......do you really think the Russians just want to sit down and hold hands and disarm? do you really think the whole world is just going to fall in line behind the Savior Obama?
I think your wanting a black man to become president has overridden your capacity for common sense.
-
SeanRenaud said on Jun 22, 2008....
Russia? Oh that nation we defeated some odd twenty years ago? One that was bankrupted in no small part by trying to compete with our military? I need you to grow up and stop believing in the boogey man. The fact is that the genie is out of the bottle and we'll never live in a world where we don't have nukes. But we might be able to put a longer delay on Iran getting them.
The entire world pretty much fell in behind Clinton so yeah I see no good reason to think that we won't regain much of our former status. For me I wish your party hadn't killed Ron Paul, but hey I'll settle for the best of what's left.
-
D6fer said on Jun 22, 2008....
The entire world pretty much fell in behind Clinton
The biggest threat we face today did not fall in line behind clinton.....china did not....russia did not either...as a matter of fact, they all grew stronger and are all collectively doing to us what we did to the soviet union.
Barrack Obama is the least equipped to handle those forces.
-
SeanRenaud said on Jun 22, 2008....
Russia died under Regan! China, China just might have made the mistakes that will keep it from ever threatening us throughout. . .the Bush II years. China owns us yeah, but they can't live without us. It's like talking about how much your hunting dog owes you in vet fees. . .cutting your hunting dog off really isn't an option. So China, not really concerned.We did have better relations with the rest of the West under Clinton and with a few key countries aside if you are the West who give a shit what you think? -
D6fer said on Jun 22, 2008....
no.....the soviet union died under reagan....russia still exists and you can bet you're bottom dollar that Putin is the next Stalin.....there are plenty of ruskies out there that long for the days when they were considered a super power.
China, Russia, and Iran have all the resources neccessary to take on the USA....bodies, technology, and money.......if you dont think that threat is real and looming, you are naive.
-
SeanRenaud said on Jun 22, 2008....
Bwahahahahahahaha bwahahahahaha. China is so far beneah us tech wise it's funny. Even at their peak Russia wasn't our equal on that and Russia is no where near. As the Russians fount out against the Germans bodies alone are useless without equipment and training. Russia might have been our equal due to numbers 20 years ago. That little pissant that calls its self Russia today, we'd just fly over bomb them into Stone Age and come home and smoke. Iran? C'mon you've got to be joking. It wasn't that long ago that they were stuck in a zero sum war with Saddam. We beat Saddam twice and it took us what? A grand total of three and a half weeks to beat Saddam the first AND second time combined?Maybe if the three of them joined forces AND England, France and Isreal decided to keep their noses clean we might potentially find ourselves fighting on US soil.We've more to fear from the OPEC nations siding entirely with against us AND getting South America to side against us. -
dyingman said on Jun 29, 2008....
D6fer
Of course Vietnam hurt us, just like Iraq is.
Neither would have hurt us if we stayed out.
How much did Iraq hurt George Bush Sr.? Not much.
Further, you mention "defeat". Defeat implies we have a goal we fail to reach.
1) Goal: Disarm Saddam Result: No WMD found.
2) Goal: Regime change. (Depose Saddam) Result: Saddam captured, his sons KIA.
3) Goal: Democracy. Result: First democratic election in Iraq ever.
4) Goal: Stability. Result: Quagmire.
How much success do we need before we quit?
What IS "stability"?
I have a question for all you Iraq war fans. How would you have won Vietnam? I've never heard a good answer. I think it might involve nuclear weapons and no one ever wants to admit that.
As for your other remarks,
I agree, Clinton didn't do much with 8 years. The Irish and UK both give him credit for the IRA cease fire though. You take what you can get.
I was unaware that disarming Russia was in anyone's plans. What would we say about a Russian President pledging to disarm America?
China is a threat. Russia is struggling. It is no Soviet Union. Putin would LIEK it to be, but it's not. I'd sooner like to see us offer rewards to Russia in exchange for enhancing their civil rights record. (Clinton did NOTHING in this regard.)
Reagan didn't collapse the Soviet Union. Gorbachev did. Reagan was lucky enough to be in the chair at the time. If not, were Brezhnev and Anropov so much tougher for Reagan to "defeat"? Why is it the whole house of cards cam down the moment Gorby grabbed the reins?
Sean's complacency about China is worrisome.
Money buys brains and brains make tech. They plan to get into nanotechnology and I give them even chances they'll master it before we do.
-
D6fer said on Jun 29, 2008....
dying.....we were winning in Vietnam when we left.
I am not a "fan" of any war.....I do think from time to time they are a necessary evil.
I don't think quagmire is a fair term for the entire operation....yes there are some areas of great concern in Iraq.....the biggest actually being next door in Iran.....If they had done some strategic airstrikes as soon as they found out where the insurgents were getting all of their supplies and help, I think this thing may have been over by now.
The real problem is, this country doesnt remember how to fight and win a war.....you have to kill people and break things.....that means civilians too.
You crush a nations spirit and they will indeed stop fighting....ie: Japan, Germany, etc.
Your take on Reagan is laughable.....it is a well known fact that the Soviets fell under the weight of their own spending, trying to keep up with the U.S.
and Reagan made it happen.
I will agree with you on China.....they are a huge threat.
-
SeanRenaud said on Jun 29, 2008....
Regan's spending did infact increase the rate that the Soviets had to spend in order to keep up with us. Had they not kept up they would have continued to lose territory and eventually we would have attacked them. Regan did largly defeat the Soviets.
Chins isn't a threat, what's more is itn's unlikely that they ever will be. We've got problems in the world but China really not not one of them. They simply don't have the technology in place to fight us right now and bodies don't equal victory any more. That shit worked, five hundred years ago. They don't have enough factories to pump out war machines of any sort, they don't have the air support. They aren't likely to be on par with us for another decade or so and guess what? When that happens just like Japan is now, their infrastructure will be so intertwined with ours (it's already happening) that to attack us would be like shooting their partner.
There was more but SC ate it, I'll retype it later. -
D6fer said on Jun 29, 2008....
sean....they have allies
-
SeanRenaud said on Jun 30, 2008....
Russia's tech isn't on par with ours (never really was) and we have allies also. It would take China a few more years to be a credible threat to us and by the time it happens it'll be stupid for them to attack us because they would loose more than they could hope to gain. Truth is that baring something really stupid (we're talking WWI stupid) the major powers of the world aren'g going to war again. As silly as it sounds right now, we've more to worry about major conglomerates going to war than we do nations. You think China wants to attack us? Who do you think buys most of their goods? Of course the same goes in reverse. Like or not we're in this thing together and no matter how we might hate them for this that or the other we'd have a hell of a time living without them. -
D6fer said on Jul 02, 2008....
our allies are not near as aggressive as theirs......if you think this game of "king of the mountain" is over....then you simply don't understand human nature. -
SeanRenaud said on Jul 02, 2008....
Our allies don't need to be as agressive as theirs are. Not to mention China attacking the US at this point would be like slitting their own throats. All that national debt that we owe them? It magically vanishes when they shoot us not something they are likely to do.
The simple reality of todays world is that what once was dealt with (primarily) by militaries is now dealt with (primarily) economically. You wanna shut down China? You'd be better off putting a stiff tarrif on everything out of Wal-Mart by bombing them.
Human nature is important yes, but the understandign the reality of your situation is more important.
-
D6fer said on Jul 03, 2008....
you dont think owning an economy the size of ours is worth some short term losses? -
sheltercrow said on Jul 23, 2008....
Dfer: "30 years of affirmative action" and we have Clarence Thomas aka Uncle Tom.
"Barrack Obama is the chosen one" of the white political system. He is a man of the center and would never have had a chance if bush hadn't fucked up so royally.
You will die a demented right winger if you don't watch out.
-
D6fer said on Jul 23, 2008....
whats the matter shelter? a black man believes in personal responsibility and justice and he's an uncle tom?....he does well for himself....gets an education and he's an uncle tom?....I wonder if Obama is considered an uncle tom in some circles?
dementia may take us all someday.....but looks like it found you 1st......liberalism is a mental disorder!
-
sheltercrow said on Jul 24, 2008....
Dfer you seem not to know that Uncle Tom is now against affirmative action.
In the landmark 2003 affirmative action case Grutter v. Bollinger, United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas authored a startling dissenting opinion. Grutter, for all intents and purposes, upheld the use of race as a plus factor in state university admissions decisions. Specifically, Grutter held that the University of Michigan Law School’s goal of creating a diverse student body was a compelling interest, and that the Law School’s affirmative action program was narrowly tailored enough to survive prohibition by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the program furthered “a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” This decision was hailed by civil rights organizations nationwide as a surprising and important victory in the fight for social justice and equal access to higher education. -
sheltercrow said on Jul 24, 2008....
Clarence Thomas, “within significant segments of black America, has been written off.” In truth, “African-American contempt for Justice Thomas can be exceptionally harsh.” Thomas’s identity as a black man is repeatedly challenged by African American critics, and comparisons of Thomas to the literary character Uncle Tom are commonplace. Further, Ebony Magazine has refused to list Clarence Thomas among its 100 most influential African Americans for the past six years, while other critics call into question Thomas’s social affiliations and close friendships with prominent white conservative ideologues. Professor Calmore muses, “I think whites generally have no idea of the intensity of black negative feelings toward Justice Thomas.”
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/blj/vol21/cummings.php
To wit, in a prime time televised tour de force, Reverend Al Sharpton severely criticized Clarence Thomas during the 2004 Democratic National Convention held in Boston, Massachusetts. Sharpton asserted that Thomas was a miserable choice as a Supreme Court Justice, that Thomas had hurt African Americans repeatedly with his judicial decisions, and that President George W. Bush would appoint similar ideologues to the Supreme Court like Thomas if he were given four additional years as President.
Further criticism of Thomas, while less daunting now than in the years directly following his confirmation, focuses on the allegations of sexual misconduct levied against him by Professor Anita Hill during Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation process. Still controversial, many believe that Thomas escaped the confirmation process and landed his seat on the U.S. High Court through misrepresentation and outright perjury while discrediting African American women in general and Anita Hill specifically. Much has been written in connection with Thomas’s alleged sexual misconduct, moral turpitude, and lack of fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. -
D6fer said on Jul 25, 2008....
ooooooohhhh.....Al Sharpton opposes Clarence Thomas too?.....well why didn't you say so? He has all kinds of credibility!
Why do you think that the voters have been overwhelmingly rejecting affirmative action? (we made it illegal here in Wa. State)
Ever heard of a guy by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. ? He gave this speech one time and in it he stated that he would like his children not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Affirmative action flies in the face of those words.
-
D6fer said on Jul 25, 2008....
-
sheltercrow said on Jul 26, 2008....
Al Sharpton, no matter what trouble he is in, always has the balls to stand up and oppose what he sees as wrong. I like his moxie.
Only a right wing nutter would use Dr. King to knock affirmative action.
Again. You will die a demented right winger if you don't watch out.
-
D6fer said on Jul 27, 2008....
no one has to use Dr. King.....his words are right there for all to hear if they choose to listen....you just choose not to........Al Sharpton is exactly the kind of man that Booker T. Washington spoke of in this quote:
"I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public."
The Democrat party is also guilty of this.....they are not truly interested in ending racism......that would take away some of their power.
Shelter.....I am afraid you are already a demented left winger.....seek help.....slavery ended a long time ago.....the only slavery that exists in this country today is the self induced slavery of liberalism.
-
sheltercrow said on Jul 27, 2008....
I don't care for the democrats or republicans. You make the mistake of thinking that all that don't agree with your dementia are democrats. The D's and R's are the left and right wing of the same corporate sponsored political party of a one party state.
100 Examples of Corruption, Lies, and Ignorance (Part 1)
-
SeanRenaud said on Jul 28, 2008....
You have to ignore Sheltercrow, she disagrees with America period. -
sheltercrow said on Jul 29, 2008....
-
D6fer said on Jul 29, 2008....
shelter......I think Stevens needs to go too....regardless of who gets his seat, Republican or Democrat.....see...that is one glaring difference between conservatives and liberals.....we are more likely to throw our own overboard for ethical reasons than liberals are......thats why the Dems still have Senators still in office that are former kkk members, left people to die in submerged vehicles, and steal money that they keep in their freezer.....I could go on....but you get the point right? -
sheltercrow said on Jul 29, 2008....
Both parties have a KKK problem
Rep. Poe Quotes Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard On House Floor | May 8th, 2007
Yesterday on the House floor, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) argued that the United States needs to immediately authorize funds for the war in Iraq. “Congress needs to quit talking about supporting the troops and put money where our mouths seem to be,” said Poe.
To make his case, he quoted “successful Confederate general” Nathan Bedford Forrest, but left out the fact that Forrest was also one of the original Grand Wizards of the Ku Klux Klan. Watch it here.
Comment on "Obama for a weaker America....in his own words"
Related Posts:
mixednuts
posted 3 days ago
| views: 352
|
I just wanted to hear what the majority plans to do. I thought the last debate went to Obama. McCain sounded like Bush lite. He's into Pinocchio politics. What do you think?... read entire post
SeanRenaud
posted 1 day ago
| views: 138
|
Or how I learned to stop being a sexist and love a woman... read entire post
bloc
posted 4 days ago
| views: 153
|
This is one of those issues I'm on the fence about and found this debate between the different sides interesting. ... read entire post
bloc
posted 5 days ago
| views: 122
|
If free, unregulated, markets are so great why do they need to be bailed out so often?... read entire post