Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Why does Daniel like Obama so much? I used to be a huge Obama guy, until I found out he is just like EVERY other candidate in the race. In fact, Obama made the “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007 by Judicial Watch.Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law. Every chance he gets, Daniel mentions his love for the guy and I don't understand why. Remember, "those swept up by syllables and rhetoric will be swept away without a fight." Don't be a sheep!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 309
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think I speak for everyone in the United States when I say: "Of course he's a crook, he's a politician. Just so long as he votes my way while he steals, then it's okay"Most elections are about voting for the lessor of two evils.To pretend otherwise is naive.At least I am voting Obama with a clear conscience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama's popularity is mainly due to his being young and black.Nothing more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I speak for everyone in the United States when I say: "Of course he's a crook, he's a politician. Just so long as he votes my way while he steals, then it's okay"Most elections are about voting for the lessor of two evils.To pretend otherwise is naive.At least I am voting Obama with a clear conscience.
Why do you settle for voting for the lesser of two evils? Ron Paul is still in (the only one not on the list, and we all know McCain is no saint) why not vote for him? Why not write someone in? When you say every politician is a crook, just remember who votes them in...usually people with a "clear conscience"...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so everyone is on the same page, this is a picture of the Tony Rezko that the OP pointed out Obama has a shady connection to.clintonsrez_012508_fresh.jpgThat's him in the middle, after giving Bill and Hillary money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you settle for voting for the lesser of two evils? Ron Paul is still in (the only one not on the list, and we all know McCain is no saint) why not vote for him? Why not write someone in? When you say every politician is a crook, just remember who votes them in...usually people with a "clear conscience"...
The country is not ready for a 3rd party candidate.Last time we tried it we ended up with Clinton twice.We are not ready for that disaster again.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I speak for everyone in the United States when I say: "Of course he's a crook, he's a politician. Just so long as he votes my way while he steals, then it's okay"Most elections are about voting for the lessor of two evils.To pretend otherwise is naive.At least I am voting Obama with a clear conscience.
You make me sad everytime I see you say that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I laugh every time I hear him say that! I can see BG reaching for the button with Obama's name next to it...the right hand starts to shake, then the fingers start to spasm he reaches with his left for support and passes out!!!Wakes up in bed with 3 nurses saying I have never seen a sudden stoke on a young man like this....fortunately for us he was admitted to the intensive care unit ASAP...no wait in SC. :club:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Socialized medicine FTW!Not picking on Canada, so no offense.I'm sure not all cases go this way and that this is most likely NOT the norm, however this is worth watching to gain a broader more open minded perspective.http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php
I'm from Canada and our health care system sucks! If you want to know why we can debate that ;)When people understand that the government can't give you everything you need or make everyone a better person the world would be a much better place. Is there a thread/blog I missed where Daniel says why he is so pro-Obama?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Socialized medicine FTW!Not picking on Canada, so no offense.I'm sure not all cases go this way and that this is most likely NOT the norm, however this is worth watching to gain a broader more open minded perspective.http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php
The one you link is bad, but the one about the woman with bladder troubles is heartbreaking. Thanks to waiting lists, a condition that is easily treatable turned into a lifelong disability.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama's popularity is mainly due to his being young and a different face in the political forefront.
FYP. I am an Obama guy also, and I do believe those are 2 things to start with for his popularity. I don't buy the "being black" argument, as if that was all you needed to be popular in American politics, there would've been a black man running for president, not named Jesse Jackson, a long time ago.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Getting government involved in health care is not a fix...but none the less, there are larger issues here too. I just don't get why people are gushing for one over the other. They are all the same!
What do you suggest then? Everyone to write-in their drunken buddies for president, because they make good points at the bar around 1 am? Whether you like it or not, the system works by finding the person you MOST agree with/find as the BEST leader for our country. Nobody SHOULD agree 100% with any one candidate.Edit: Also, find and vote for someone who could actually win. Whether you believe it or not, voting for Ron Paul, Ross Perot, etc. is a waste of a vote, basically. Sure, the system allows you to pick anyone who's name is in the hat, but voting for Ron Paul is just like any Kansas resident voting Democrat (at least, while the electoral college is in use, but I won't get started on that.)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Edit: Also, find and vote for someone who could actually win. Whether you believe it or not, voting for Ron Paul, Ross Perot, etc. is a waste of a vote, basically. Sure, the system allows you to pick anyone who's name is in the hat, but voting for Ron Paul is just like any Kansas resident voting Democrat.
This only makes sense if you believe that voting is similar to betting on horses.I think most people think that the point of voting is to be able to express their opinions in the clearest way possible. In that way, if you vote for your "lesser of the viable evils" candidate over someone you agree with much more thoroughly, then you are throwing away your vote because you are expressing a confused, muddled version of your opinion, and no part of it will get through. The other problem with the "only vote for winner" theory is that in most races, thanks to advanced polling techniques, it is clear who is going to win (the cases where one candidate's lead is outside the margin of error). Are you suggesting that in those districts, the winner should get 100%, since the other person has no chance to win? So that it's either a close race or unanimous, based on polling numbers in the days leading up to the election? Nah, that can't be what you are suggesting, yet it is the direct conclusion of your statements.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's something I can get behind is the abolition of the electorial college. It's antiquated and does not give every vote equal weight. Like here in Montana, chances are the state will go for McCain so my vote won't make a damn bit of difference anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Edit: Also, find and vote for someone who could actually win. Whether you believe it or not, voting for Ron Paul, Ross Perot, etc. is a waste of a vote, basically. Sure, the system allows you to pick anyone who's name is in the hat, but voting for Ron Paul is just like any Kansas resident voting Democrat (at least, while the electoral college is in use, but I won't get started on that.)
Voting for one of two indiscernible candidates, all of which I disagree with about anything that matters, is a waste of a vote. The threat of voters moving to a candidate with an actual platform is the only thing that keeps the major parties in line.How much did Clinton have to do for gay voters to get their vote? Just not screw them as much as a Republican. How much did Bush have to make a smaller government? Not at all, because people believe the Democrats would make even bigger government.How much influence does a person who votes for his party regardless? Absolutely none.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I was trying to get at was this: I don't see the point in voting for someone like I mentioned (Ron Paul, Ross Perot, etc.) if there's an electable candidate who shares many of your same views. I feel if you don't find a candidate out there who has a legitimate shot at winning who you can get behind, then not voting is the way to go. A Ross Perot-type candidate getting 2% rather than 1% doesn't do much, IMO. I think a small turnout when voting comes around speaks louder than the previous example. It shows that the American public are not satisfied with those who they are "picked' to choose from. That is why when I hear the argument, "If you don't vote, then don't come crying to me when you disagree with the next president, blah blah blah"...In many places, whether you like to acknowledge it or not, your vote really DOESN'T matter (but that's getting back into the whole electoral college thing, which I refuse to rant on at this moment :club: )

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I was trying to get at was this: I don't see the point in voting for someone like I mentioned (Ron Paul, Ross Perot, etc.) if there's an electable candidate who shares many of your same views. I feel if you don't find a candidate out there who has a legitimate shot at winning who you can get behind, then not voting is the way to go. A Ross Perot-type candidate getting 2% rather than 1% doesn't do much, IMO. I think a small turnout when voting comes around speaks louder than the previous example. It shows that the American public are not satisfied with those who they are "picked' to choose from. That is why when I hear the argument, "If you don't vote, then don't come crying to me when you disagree with the next president, blah blah blah"...In many places, whether you like to acknowledge it or not, your vote really DOESN'T matter (but that's getting back into the whole electoral college thing, which I refuse to rant on at this moment :club: )
See, some people, believe it or not, don't just settle on their beliefs. They stick by them and don't go for the "electable" guy. I don't get how you can say voting for someone who is low in the polls is a waste of a vote.
Link to post
Share on other sites
See, some people, believe it or not, don't just settle on their beliefs. They stick by them and don't go for the "electable" guy. I don't get how you can say voting for someone who is low in the polls is a waste of a vote.
Try actually reading what I said. I didn't say "go for the electable guy", necessarily. If you agree with alot of what they represent, then yes. What does voting for someone who could never win who you, say, 90% agree with accomplish over voting for someone who you 80% agree with who could win??? I guess what I'm getting at is I would rather go with someone I might slightly agree less with than a guy who couldn't win, rather than actually voting for the guy who couldn't win which might, in turn, cause the guy who I agree with 5% to win.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Try actually reading what I said. I didn't say "go for the electable guy", necessarily. If you agree with alot of what they represent, then yes. What does voting for someone who could never win who you, say, 90% agree with accomplish over voting for someone who you 80% agree with who could win??? I guess what I'm getting at is I would rather go with someone I might slightly agree less with than a guy who couldn't win, rather than actually voting for the guy who couldn't win which might, in turn, cause the guy who I agree with 5% to win.
I did read it...I'd still vote for the person I agree with 90% on the issues.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Try actually reading what I said. I didn't say "go for the electable guy", necessarily. If you agree with alot of what they represent, then yes. What does voting for someone who could never win who you, say, 90% agree with accomplish over voting for someone who you 80% agree with who could win??? I guess what I'm getting at is I would rather go with someone I might slightly agree less with than a guy who couldn't win, rather than actually voting for the guy who couldn't win which might, in turn, cause the guy who I agree with 5% to win.
I think you have to ask yourself how often does any one individual vote affect a statewide or national election. Once a year? Twice a year?But yeah, I agree, if you have a guy who is your second choice, and is within a couple percentage points, then you have something to think about. In OT I posted a link to a questionaire that ranks each candidate on how much they agree with you. With those results, I guess you have to weigh the "send a message by voting for a loser" vote versus the "hold your nose and try to limit the damage vote." I lean toward the former, but can certainly see the argument for the latter. It all depends how close the two are.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you have to ask yourself how often does any one individual vote affect a statewide or national election. Once a year? Twice a year?But yeah, I agree, if you have a guy who is your second choice, and is within a couple percentage points, then you have something to think about. In OT I posted a link to a questionaire that ranks each candidate on how much they agree with you. With those results, I guess you have to weigh the "send a message by voting for a loser" vote versus the "hold your nose and try to limit the damage vote." I lean toward the former, but can certainly see the argument for the latter. It all depends how close the two are.
Yeah, I took that "who's your candidate" test and was glad to see my top 3, said by the test, was my top 3 favorites that were in the race (1. Obama, 2. Edwards, 3. Clinton) And the point you made about one vote affecting a state or national election: Obviously 1 vote wouldn't do that, but in th 2004 presidential election, almost 1 million votes were cast, nationwide, for Ralph Nader and Michael Badnarik...neither of which obv. had a chance of winning. IMO, a large percentage of that 1 million would be much happier leaning to the left rather than the right....and not 4 more years of Bush.Edit: I know see Badnarik endorsed Ron Paul in this election, which FURTHER shows me his "followers" would not go the way of today's Republican.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I think that Daniel likes Obama for his personality and the domestic policies that he keeps on promising. He promises fairness and change. I believe he's full of it though. No one can change the corruption in America, I don't care if he's the most positive leader in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...