Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2007/11/08/image3472515g.jpg
If you're like me, you received an email about Borack Obama blatantly disrespecting not only the troops, not only the GOP or even his own voters/party, but everyone. Every last American when he refused to put his hand over his heart or recite the pledge of alligience at a ceremony.

Originally posted by Captain King
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2007/11/08/image3472515g.jpg
If you're like me, you received an email about Borack Obama blatantly disrespecting not only the troops, not only the GOP or even his own voters/party, but everyone. Every last American when he refused to put his hand over his heart or recite the pledge of alligience at a ceremony. The pledge of allegiance is ****ing bullshit.

Unamerican.

Did you spell his name wrong on purpose?

derka derka

Originally posted by Captain King
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2007/11/08/image3472515g.jpg
If you're like me, you received an email about Borack Obama blatantly disrespecting not only the troops, not only the GOP or even his own voters/party, but everyone. Every last American when he refused to put his hand over his heart or recite the pledge of alligience at a ceremony.

Did you forget that America is a free country and it isn't illegal to not indulge in symbolism.

Seriously, is this the best dirt they call pull up on Obama? He didn't snort coke in college, have sex with a underage boy, get drunk and run someone over etc. etc. etc? No real dirt?

Originally posted by Captain King
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2007/11/08/image3472515g.jpg
If you're like me, you received an email about Borack Obama blatantly disrespecting not only the troops, not only the GOP or even his own voters/party, but everyone. Every last American when he refused to put his hand over his heart or recite the pledge of alligience at a ceremony.
It looks like the other two are not covering their heart as well. Soooo, where's your point?

Maybe his heart is his crotch? He is obviously covering his crotch.

Originally posted by Schecter
derka derka

You're a little jealous, aren't you? DK has a caricature now.

he is black, he dont support them white fat cat slave ownin people whom wrote the constitution.

Originally posted by silver_tears
Did you spell his name wrong on purpose?

Every time I hear his name, I think of Baraka from MK.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The pledge of allegiance is ****ing bullshit.

Unamerican.
I heard that not being able to find the US on a globe is becoming trendy as well.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It looks like the other two are not covering their heart as well. Soooo, where's your point?

Maybe his heart is his crotch? He is obviously covering his crotch.
The photo was taken right bfore they stoodup. Obama was the only one who did not standup.

This comes as no suprise to anyone who does a bit of research. Obama is a member of the black panthers, a radical sepratist group that rivals that of the klu klux klan and has very extreme socio policies involving our money and lives.


I believe before this country worries about terrorism abroad, we should worry about the terrorists at home. Obama wold constitute as such a terrorist.

Originally posted by Captain King
The photo was taken right bfore they stoodup. Obama was the only one who did not standup.

This comes as no suprise to anyone who does a bit of research. Obama is a member of the black panthers, a radical sepratist group that rivals that of the klu klux klan and has very extreme socio policies involving our money and lives.


I believe before this country worries about terrorism abroad, we should worry about the terrorists at home. Obama wold constitute as such a terrorist.

RIIIIIIGHT...he's a black panther.

Originally posted by Captain King
The photo was taken right bfore they stoodup. Obama was the only one who did not standup.

This comes as no suprise to anyone who does a bit of research. Obama is a member of the black panthers, a radical sepratist group that rivals that of the klu klux klan and has very extreme socio policies involving our money and lives.


I believe before this country worries about terrorism abroad, we should worry about the terrorists at home. Obama wold constitute as such a terrorist.

If that was remotely true, his political opponents would know one heck of a lot better then you would. They do their research on each other very well. The fact that Edwards hasn't blown him out of candidacy is pretty much proof that this isn't valid.

"Jagshemesh! My name Borack! I like you. I like sex. Is nice!!!"

Originally posted by Quark_666
If that was remotely true, his political opponents would know one heck of a lot better then you would. They do their research on each other very well. The fact that Edwards hasn't blown him out of candidacy is pretty much proof that this isn't valid.
Like the democrats are actually going to kill thier one shot at the whitehouse? John Edwards nor Hillary has what it takes, it's up to Obama, ofcourse they're going to try to keep this kindof thing underwraps.

oh that made my day

No he is not a member of the Black Panthers, also he sometimes hplds his arm the foirmal way and sometimes does not- rather like most americans, I suspect- and there is not one tiny tidbit of anything to suggest he did not say the pledge.

Spreading such total nonsense is unseemly for anyone.

If you want I can link to some myspace group posts. I'm not the only person who got the email.

Myspace and chain emails, yes, those are certainly credible sources.

Originally posted by Captain King
You know schector, instead of making an ass out of yourself infront of everybody, you could just IM me if you want to flame. Then I could introduce you to my friends and they could make you feel like what you really are. Unless you're as yellow as you are annoying.

[email protected]


That's msn messenger incase you're a total n00b, now you have no excuse to continue this one-sided flame-duel.

lol

Originally posted by Schecter
lol

rotflmfao

Oh no, he didn't say the Pledge. I'm obviously not voting for him, and I will stop funding the Black Panthers. Jeebus, how lame.

Originally posted by Captain REX
Oh no, he didn't say the Pledge. I'm obviously not voting for him, and I will stop funding the Black Panthers. Jeebus, how lame.



mmmm hmmm, yessssssss.........

Wut WOOD jeebus do?

This is as stupid as "Clinton lied to the public! He did **** that intern!".

Is this the same guy who wants to invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden?

Originally posted by lord xyz
This is as stupid as "Clinton lied to the public! He did **** that intern!". Well...it's true though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well...it's true though.

*Whispers:*
JFK was a philanderer as well.

The real question should be....why the f!ck do people care what these people do with their personal lives? Why do people centre their arguments on the fact that these people are *GULPS* people, who make mistakes or aren't perfect?

As long as they aren't causing anyone harm against their will, or whatever, I don't give a - well, you know - what they do behind closed doors - or at the podium.

BTW: That being said, not submitting to the American symbolism that is the "Pledge of Allegiance," et al., was (IMHO) a foolish move.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well...it's true though. He didn't lie.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." is a true statement to him. Unless that was his excuse.

http://www.bandersnatch.com/bilsex.htm

Besides my obvious point is that it is not that big of an issue. Unlawful wars, poverty and contras are way more serious.

Whether or not Clinton should be allowed to have extra-marital affairs while in office is one thing, the fact that he lied to the American public about it is another.

Lying to the nation is bad, or don't you anti-Bushies apply that same logic to people you like?

Originally posted by lord xyz
He didn't lie.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." is a true statement to him. Unless that was his excuse.

http://www.bandersnatch.com/bilsex.htm

Besides my obvious point is that it is not that big of an issue. Unlawful wars, poverty and contras are way more serious. Actually he just used his own, inaccurate definition of sexual relations. He did lie. Not that it matters, in fact, he shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

Originally posted by lord xyz
He didn't lie.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." is a true statement to him. Unless that was his excuse.

http://www.bandersnatch.com/bilsex.htm

Besides my obvious point is that it is not that big of an issue. Unlawful wars, poverty and contras are way more serious.

so in your opinion it is ok for a politician to tell half truths and be deliberately misleading when being asked about his conduct?

Honestly then you are also justifying the use of "Saddam/Al Qaeda" in the same sentence, so long as they don't explicitly say "Saddam supports Al Qaeda"

Originally posted by inimalist
Whether or not Clinton should be allowed to have extra-marital affairs while in office is one thing, the fact that he lied to the American public about it is another.

Lying to the nation is bad, or don't you anti-Bushies apply that same logic to people you like?

True, he did lie. Oral sex is still sex, Bill.

That being said, everyone knew that JFK was a philanderer, and there was no uproar about it - although, I s'pose we'd then have to ask the question, would he have lied about it?

BTW: I meant to say "Pledge of Allegiance," not the "Declaration of Independence." I misspoke.

Originally posted by inimalist
Whether or not Clinton should be allowed to have extra-marital affairs while in office is one thing, the fact that he lied to the American public about it is another.

Lying to the nation is bad, or don't you anti-Bushies apply that same logic to people you like? I think lying is bad. But there are obviously differences. Lying about intelligence to drag your country into an unjust war, causing 3000+ US Americans and many more non-Americans (which of course doesn't count) to die and lying about your personal life, because it is embarassing and no ones business but yours, your wives and that cum hungry whore you let suck you off are just two extremely different things. THe second being close to not bad, and much less bad than it being dragged into the open in the first place anyway.


Though that's just my moral view, I see that 50% of US Americans feel that lying about who you **** is worse than killing hundred thousands of people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think lying is bad. But there are obviously differences. Lying about intelligence to drag your country into an unjust war, causing 3000+ US Americans and many more non-Americans (which of course doesn't count) to die and lying about your personal life, because it is embarassing and no ones business but yours, your wives and that cum hungry whore you let suck you off are just two extremely different things. THe second being close to not bad, and much less bad than it being dragged into the open in the first place anyway.


Though that's just my moral view, I see that 50% of US Americans feel that lying about who you **** is worse than killing hundred thousands of people.

I don't disagree with you, I have just never been a fan of distinguishing the lesser of two evils.

Once you can justify lying to the public for one reason, it can be justified for anything, imho, just given how easy it is to intellectualize and rationalize things.

But ya, it shouldn't have mattered at all to the public if Clinton had an affair.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually he just used his own, inaccurate definition of sexual relations. He did lie. Not that it matters, in fact, he shouldn't have been asked in the first place. I agree. Why should people care who Clinton has sex with?

double post

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't disagree with you, I have just never been a fan of distinguishing the lesser of two evils.

Once you can justify lying to the public for one reason, it can be justified for anything, imho, just given how easy it is to intellectualize and rationalize things.

But ya, it shouldn't have mattered at all to the public if Clinton had an affair. I think he shouldn't have lied, but there should have been an option for him to refuse to answer and he should have used it. He should have no obligation to show his personal life to everyone. Of course lying was wrong. But I feel like distinguishing between the lesser of two evils is quite essential.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think he shouldn't have lied, but there should have been an option for him to refuse to answer and he should have used it. He should have no obligation to show his personal life to everyone.

absolutely, he should have said pretty much exactly what you did.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course lying was wrong. But I feel like distinguishing between the lesser of two evils is quite essential.

fair enough, so long as you don't lose sight of the fact that it is still evil

Originally posted by inimalist
absolutely, he should have said pretty much exactly what you did.



fair enough, so long as you don't lose sight of the fact that it is still evil Surely not, but we both can see the difference between shoplifting a lolli and killing five people by kniving their *******.

One is just so totally a lesser of two evils...

indeed, but that is apples to oranges

in both situations we have a leader lying to the public, in one situation to start an unjust war, the other to ignore personal embarrassment.

I would say this makes Bush a worse person, but I will not excuse Clinton's act because someone did the same thing, only with worse consequences.

I'd rather be led by a Clinton than a Bush, but realistically, I wouldn't want either.

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, but that is apples to oranges

in both situations we have a leader lying to the public, in one situation to start an unjust war, the other to ignore personal embarrassment.

I would say this makes Bush a worse person, but I will not excuse Clinton's act because someone did the same thing, only with worse consequences.

I'd rather be led by a Clinton than a Bush, but realistically, I wouldn't want either. Actually, I feel that I could forgive Clinton's lying to me about a trivial subject and would not assume that his leadership is compromised by it, while lying about a most vital issue to cheat the whole nation into a course of action it would not have wanted otherwise ... well, to me that just disqualifies someone.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think he shouldn't have lied, but there should have been an option for him to refuse to answer and he should have used it. He should have no obligation to show his personal life to everyone. Of course lying was wrong. But I feel like distinguishing between the lesser of two evils is quite essential. ClfpG2-1Bv4

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, but that is apples to oranges

in both situations we have a leader lying to the public, in one situation to start an unjust war, the other to ignore personal embarrassment.

I would say this makes Bush a worse person, but I will not excuse Clinton's act because someone did the same thing, only with worse consequences.

I'd rather be led by a Clinton than a Bush, but realistically, I wouldn't want either.

Although that is also apples to massive, mutated apples.

:edit:

I think you don't like him and don't want to see him as a president of America.That is why you are saying this.I think he has all the rights to fight foe president ship.Let the people decide.

Boy, why is it elections are never based on ISSUES?

Cause if say, I attack you on some legitimate issue and I once elected totally fail on that (or have failed in the past on the same issue), then the hypocrisy would be there for all to see for even the most ininformed of voters.
Therefore personal attacks and attacks on areas which can unite the ignorant hater parts in some folk are a much safer bet.

Mind you, having said that, even with the majority of America hating Bush, they still wouldn't/couldn't get rid of him (he who shouldn't have been in the whitehouse in the first place)...

So maybe slaggin off Obama or any other opposition in this way is just a liberty enjoyed by the undesposable.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Boy, why is it elections are never based on ISSUES?

Because anyone who has a chance of being elected is just a puppet with the same handler's hand jammed up his or her ass.

That too.