Thread: Barak Obama

Originally Posted by nuckingfutz

There jim, you've been SPECIFICALLY corrected. Don't let it happen again. My patience has its limits.

Help! The enigma of ajarn is haunting me. <shudder> someone call interpol.

Originally Posted by nuckingfutz

I'm just wondering what kind of person it takes to get to 20,000 posts with nothing to say.

Well, those that have read all of them ARE entitled to their opinions. Thanks for taking the time ole' pal.

Originally Posted by nuckingfutz

I don't claim to know much about other posters, but I'm virtually 100% sure on that one. Call it a meltdown if you want, but it's still a fact. Some things are so blatantly obvious that meeting you is certainly not required to make the observation.

Only a retarded out of work psychic would truthfully make such a baseless claim. You're off your mark buddy. Typed words can be deceiving

Originally Posted by kingdomcome

Effective at what? Lying? Deceitfulness? Smear campaigns? Attack ads? Waging war? Alienating and dividing the Nation? What the fuck are they better at?

Yes, they are better at all of those things. As I said, I loathe the Republicans, despite your insinuation that I am a closet conservative (I am so progressive that I also loathe the accomodationist, centrist Democrats). Case in point of the Republican effectiveness - last night a small group of Republican senators killed the auto bailout plan in the Senate. A small group of Republicans - the minority party - were able to block something of consequence, although the Democrats have not been able to do the same, despite having been in the majority in both Houses during the past two years.

Originally Posted by kingdomcome

I'll admit in the two years Democrats have been in control they've accomplished very little, but "falling all over themselves to accomodate Bush"?

The Democrats campaigned in 2006 on a pledge to end the war in Iraq. They failed to do so, and have given Bush everything he has asked for on the war, refused to hold the administration accountable for torture, and acquiesed to domestic spying. Even Obama voted to support FISA, reneging on his promise not only to vote against it, but to fillibuster it.

Originally Posted by kingdomcome

Perhaps Mr. Starr shouldn't have been given 87 million dollars of taxpayer money to bring down the President.
Perhaps Clinton should never have been subpoenaed in the first place.

I would agree this was not money wisely spent. People are not free, however, to decide to lie under oath when they unilaterally decide that the questions "should not have been asked." Mr. Clinton was not obligated to answer the questions - he could have refused to answer and gone to the judge for a ruling on their appropriateness. Once he decided to answer, however, he was obligated to do so truthfully. That, my friend, is the law, and he broke it.

Originally Posted by kingdomcome

Yeah, those Clinton years were horrible weren't they?

My criticism of Clinton comes from the left. I think he was a very disappointing president because 1) he undermined the legal system by lying under oath, 2) he mistreated his allies - sending them out to lie for him, 3) he repeatedly betrayed the gay and lesbian community that had supported him, by, for example instituting the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and signing the Defense of Marriage act, 4) he failed to adequately respond to the genocide in Rwanda.

Originally Posted by jimbo

I will say again, slowly and clearly for you: I wrote: "Firstly, the supreme court has ruled. Not good enough for YOU?" <<this indicates YOUR belief in the supreme court,...NOT mine With me?

Try this very simple questionnaire:

1.) Do you believe in the US supreme court's decision making process?

yes or no?

2.) Did you accept the supreme courts decision regarding GWB's first election?

yes or no?

3.) Do you accept the supreme court's current decision regarding Obama's nationality?

yes or no?

hint: if you answered yes to the first two and no to the third, you are a hypocrite.

Problem is, Jimbo, that the supreme court has not been involved at all in point no. 3. The ruling that you seem to take issue with was a low level federal court, not the supreme court, and was not even a decision on the merits, but rather on the narrow issue of standing. That aside, I don't see why you conflate Bush v. Gore with the citizenship case; they involve quite different legal issues.

"Barack Obama has held elected office on the federal level, won his parties nomination for President, and then was elected President of the United States, all without providing proof that he is in compliance with the provisions laid down very plainly in the Constitution. One should be able to declare such a scenario as inconceivable, yet it appears to be all too true.

And for those of you who have studied history in any detail, the truth is far more often stranger than fiction. Obama may fall, and in many ways he already does, into that category. Who would have thought that an "I vote present" product of the incredibly corrupt Chicago political machine with a Leftist ideology, a Muslim stepfather, a socialistic economic policy, a radical spiritual mentor, and who is beholden to a domestic terrorist for the launching of his political career could so easily be elected to the Presidency of the United States of America? If I had pitched that scenario to you two years ago you would have called me crazy yet that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in.

I do believe this will probably not be little more than an interesting political sideshow that will end up as just another bizarre footnote in annals of history. It is somewhat disturbing though that we are apparently willing to just wave constitutional requirements for the highest office of the land whenever we see fit. One has to believe that altering and tampering with basic constitutional provisions is probably not very wise and not healthy for our form of government.

The glaring disgrace here is that Obama should have been forced to prove his eligibility for office (they all should) before the first primary election or caucus was held and that the Democratic Party failed miserably in its duty to make sure that they were offering up a legitimate and eligible candidate as their presidential nominee."
Obama's "natural born" problem

Originally Posted by Papa

"Barack Obama has held elected office on the federal level, won his parties nomination for President, and then was elected President of the United States, all without providing proof that he is in compliance with the provisions laid down very plainly in the Constitution. One should be able to declare such a scenario as inconceivable, yet it appears to be all too true.

And for those of you who have studied history in any detail, the truth is far more often stranger than fiction. Obama may fall, and in many ways he already does, into that category. Who would have thought that an "I vote present" product of the incredibly corrupt Chicago political machine with a Leftist ideology, a Muslim stepfather, a socialistic economic policy, a radical spiritual mentor, and who is beholden to a domestic terrorist for the launching of his political career could so easily be elected to the Presidency of the United States of America? If I had pitched that scenario to you two years ago you would have called me crazy yet that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in.

I do believe this will probably not be little more than an interesting political sideshow that will end up as just another bizarre footnote in annals of history. It is somewhat disturbing though that we are apparently willing to just wave constitutional requirements for the highest office of the land whenever we see fit. One has to believe that altering and tampering with basic constitutional provisions is probably not very wise and not healthy for our form of government.

The glaring disgrace here is that Obama should have been forced to prove his eligibility for office (they all should) before the first primary election or caucus was held and that the Democratic Party failed miserably in its duty to make sure that they were offering up a legitimate and eligible candidate as their presidential nominee."
Obama's "natural born" problem

The above is cliche from the past. The campaign is over.

Now it's reality.

Obama is governing from the Center. I very wise move, and I believe he's setting himself up for re-election already by doing this. Planning to be re-elected, I mean.

During the campaign, the mud above didn't stick. And I don't think it'll stick now that he'll be in office on January 20th.

Originally Posted by Papa

"Barack Obama blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

God, you're boring

Originally Posted by Papa

Obama's "natural born" problem

renewamerica.us ? Are you fucking serious? You'd have gotten more respect if you'd have quoted the damn Bible.

For Christ's sake ... get off Obama's arse with this crap about his birth. He is a totally legal US citizen borne on US soil.

So they say, but where's the proof?

Ask his mum.