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

VOIGHT: My concerns for America
Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people


OP-ED

We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.

Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.

Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.

Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.

If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.

Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.

This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.

Jon Voight is an Academy Award-winning actor who is well-known for his humanitarian work.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/28/voight/

Before I go into any real rebuttal, how is the "programming" of McCain any different?

Voight da man

not that I even disagree

but socialist is the 1000% wrong term.

and obviously the rhetoric about terrorism and iran was written by someone in grade 3 or with that level of understanding of the issue

Like I care what a celebrity said, be it him or Oprah.

Republicans winning is a serious political fantasy, anyone who thinks the Republicans have done a good job is in denail or a Fuddie.

Originally posted by inimalist
not that I even disagree

but socialist is the 1000% wrong term.

and obviously the rhetoric about terrorism and iran was written by someone in grade 3 or with that level of understanding of the issue

How about Marxist?

I did like the "Thank God for Gen. David Petraeus, he stopped terrorist from setting up base in Iraq". Saddam was actually doing a great job in that respect.

Originally posted by Robtard
How about Marxist?

I don't think either work, especially from what the op ed is saying. Marxism/Socialism deal with state influences/controls of the economy and other things. The op ed seems to say that Obama, because he is black and has a diverse upbringing, is a terrorist.

lol, I'm the first person to say Obama has been overshodowed by his own rhetoric, but he isn't even as liberal as a Canadian conservative in matters regarding the economy, thus, imho, making it very difficult to call him a socialist.

Originally posted by Robtard
I did like the "Thank God for Gen. David Petraeus, he stopped terrorist from setting up base in Iraq". Saddam was actually doing a great job in that respect.

lol, you can say that again

actually, do you know if the PKK was very active under Saddam? they seem to have stepped it up since the Americans gave the Kurds a lot of autonomy...

another obama spam thread

sithsaber for the fail

This is just plain BS. McCain probably paid him to say that.

Very little under the text: ''I'm John McCain and I approve this message''.

To be a little more serious, who honestly think Obama will lead the country that much differently than McCain, or any for that matter. With such a crumbling economy to handle, they'll all be crushed at the ball, which will leave them with no manoeuverability. Whoever thinks this election will make a difference in the history of the US is a looney.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think either work, especially from what the op ed is saying. Marxism/Socialism deal with state influences/controls of the economy and other things.

Right: control over society values, letting go economically.

Left: control over the market, letting go society values.

Basics...

Voight and Oprah hold no credibility with me. I'm more about who Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers are supporting.

Nicely said mate!

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think either work, especially from what the op ed is saying. Marxism/Socialism deal with state influences/controls of the economy and other things. The op ed seems to say that Obama, because he is black and has a diverse upbringing, is a terrorist.

lol, I'm the first person to say Obama has been overshodowed by his own rhetoric, but he isn't even as liberal as a Canadian conservative in matters regarding the economy, thus, imho, making it very difficult to call him a socialist.

lol, you can say that again

actually, do you know if the PKK was very active under Saddam? they seem to have stepped it up since the Americans gave the Kurds a lot of autonomy...

That was a joke, I've heard a few conservatives say Obama is a threat because he has Marxist views (besides beling a Muslim, terrorist supporter and a racist).

Not sure to what level, but didn't Saddam gas the Kurds whenever they made a peep? He was good at that, someone made a noise/challenged his position, gas, gas, gas.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
VOIGHT: My concerns for America
Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people


OP-ED

We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.

Yes. Socialism is double-plus-ungood. borg

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. Socialism is double-plus-ungood. borg

Me and your sarcastic self are like twins.

I think people call Obama a socialist or a marxist because of his massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor policies..which they would be right about.

Another celebrity's pointless political opinion.

Another statement filled with factual errors and hyperbole.

Anyone heard what Britney had to say about that?

Originally posted by KidRock
I think people call Obama a socialist or a marxist because of his massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor policies..which they would be right about.

Call me a bad libertarian, but I prefer it to Bush's massive redistribution of wealth from rich and poor to **** all.

Originally posted by BackFire
Another celebrity's pointless political opinion.

Another statement filled with factual errors and hyperbole.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Call me a bad libertarian, but I prefer it to Bush's massive redistribution of wealth from rich and poor to **** all.

Originally posted by KidRock
I think people call Obama a socialist or a marxist because of his massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor policies..which they would be right about.

which were also not brought up in this article which accuses him of socialism.

And again, maybe take a international view of what socialism actually is, and you find mr. obama to be a moderate centrist who leans a bit right.

When your country's national debate on child care is which party can throw as much money at people, then sure, complain about socialism.

Also, wealth redistribution is hardly socialist or even leftist.

Originally posted by inimalist

Also, wealth redistribution is hardly socialist or even leftist.

Huh?

Program our children. Oh that's such a nice phrase right there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Huh?

its not libertarian or anarchist by any means

but even something like "a high tide raises all ships" seems to assume that built into free market economy is a natural type of wealth redistribution, if only using a mechanism that isn't the state.

and, last I checked, conservatives still charged taxes.

Originally posted by inimalist
its not libertarian or anarchist by any means

but even something like "a high tide raises all ships" seems to assume that built into free market economy is a natural type of wealth redistribution, if only using a mechanism that isn't the state.

and, last I checked, conservatives still charged taxes.

Well, I suppose they do redistribute wealth. But taking it from the rich to pay for the poor is certainly a socialist principle.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I suppose they do redistribute wealth. But taking it from the rich to pay for the poor is certainly a socialist principle.

Yeah, redistribution of wealth certainly is a socialist principle and what I was getting at with Obama are all his social programs to benefit the poor are being paid for by the massive increase in taxes for the rich..taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. I don't know how anyone can disagree with Obama not being socialist here.

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, redistribution of wealth certainly is a socialist principle and what I was getting at with Obama are all his social programs to benefit the poor are being paid for by the massive increase in taxes for the rich..taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. I don't know how anyone can disagree with Obama not being socialist here.

On a different note, Bush spent 1 000 000 000 000 + dollars on a war somewhere quite far away...if McCain goes down that road (and he seems to want to), even economically it is just a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwhich again.

Originally posted by Bardock42
On a different note, Bush spent 1 000 000 000 000 + dollars on a war somewhere quite far away...if McCain goes down that road (and he seems to want to), even economically it is just a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwhich again.

I agree. But I also don't believe all of Obama's "WE WILL GET THE TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ!" talk. So it is either we pay for a useless war..or we pay for a useless war AND a bunch of social programs that will drain our economy even more.

Or the US actually listens to Maliki's words and follows his timetable of troop withdraw.

The USA is incredibly screwed at this point. Voight is completely correct, and the scare fact is that Obama will win, and when he does, we'll all be screwed over.

Kidrock,

Weren't you the gun-ho, bring on the war, we'll kick their asses because they deserve it and we're doing a good thing guy? Now the war is "useless"? Odd.

Originally posted by Robtard
Kidrock,

Weren't you the gun-ho, bring on the war, we'll kick their asses because they deserve it and we're doing a good thing guy? Now the war is "useless"? Odd.

I have always been gun-ho about the war on terror and in Afghanistan hunting for Bin Laden and I believe we should still be there. On the war in Iraq there is a difference between supporting the war and supporting the men fighting it, something Democrats have yet to learn. I also did support the war in the beginning when I was told that Iraq broke their regulations and were building WMD's, now that it has been shown to be false I don't support it anymore and feel we should leave (but not before the government and military of the country is stable.) but I will always support the men fighting it. The war in Iraq hasnt been a completely useless war though, we did establish a democracy in Iraq and killed plenty of terrorists operating inside the country freely..but now I feel that since we have done those things the time to leave is approaching.

You know, I'm about 100% certain that it was/is the Republicans/Conservatives who hold the belief and touted the "you can't support the tropps if you don't also support the war" rhetoric.

Edit: I forgot to add, Iraq isn't a Democracy. When you have a very good chance of getting blown apart, shot or beheaded because of the way you vote, it isn't really a Democracy.

Originally posted by chithappens
Before I go into any real rebuttal, how is the "programming" of McCain any different?

I suppose it is not any different. Voight is right about one thing though, Obama's really team is doing a good job of playing the part of The Pied Piper and rounding up all the gullible young voters.

You know, I'd think that if it were really that easy to gather young people for a political campaign that other past campaigns would have succeeded.

Originally posted by BackFire
You know, I'd think that if it were really that easy to gather young people for a political campaign that other past campaigns would have succeeded.

Never said it was easy. My hat goes off to them for deceiving so many youngsters.

Originally posted by Blinky
I suppose it is not any different. Voight is right about one thing though, Obama's really team is doing a good job of playing the part of The Pied Piper and rounding up all the gullible young voters.

Yeah, it's not easy to round up a bunch of "KidRocks" to go kick terrorist ass even if we have to run over a nation that has nothing to do with it!

It's the same shit.

I don't see the point.

Originally posted by Blinky
Never said it was easy. My hat goes off to them for deceiving so many youngsters.

You say they're gullible - by default, because of the definition of the word, that implies that it's easy.

In fact, young people are among the most cynical when it comes to politics, they're the least gullible around, hence why it's been so difficult to get them involved in the past.

That said, it's cute how people say Obama is inherently deceiving them by getting them involved finally, as if there can't be good reasons why young people would go for him. Quite stupid, really. Guess that means McCain is deceiving old people by getting them, and veterans, and so on.

Originally posted by Robtard
That was a joke, I've heard a few conservatives say Obama is a threat because he has Marxist views (besides beling a Muslim, terrorist supporter and a racist).

ah, me slow

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure to what level, but didn't Saddam gas the Kurds whenever they made a peep? He was good at that, someone made a noise/challenged his position, gas, gas, gas.

ya, he did a good job of keeping them... dead?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I suppose they do redistribute wealth. But taking it from the rich to pay for the poor is certainly a socialist principle.

yes and no. The more direct it is, then sure, but most systems talk about using funds to do things for the state.

I'm probably reading to much into it, so for the sake of brevity, you are correct.

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, redistribution of wealth certainly is a socialist principle and what I was getting at with Obama are all his social programs to benefit the poor are being paid for by the massive increase in taxes for the rich..taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. I don't know how anyone can disagree with Obama not being socialist here.

Socialist: http://www.ndp.ca/

being from a Socialist nation I find it very easy to disagree with that claim made about Obama

Originally posted by inimalist


being from a Socialist nation I find it very easy to disagree with that claim made about Obama

Explain how it isnt a socialst principle then, and explain how Obama doesnt support it.

Originally posted by Robtard
You know, I'm about 100% certain that it was/is the Republicans/Conservatives who hold the belief and touted the "you can't support the tropps if you don't also support the war" rhetoric

Maybe, maybe not. I do know that I get called a "war mongering republican" whenever I say I support our troops in Iraq and whenever I say "we shouldn't pull them out immediately" I am again called a war mongering neo-con.

Originally posted by Robtard

Edit: I forgot to add, Iraq isn't a Democracy. When you have a very good chance of getting blown apart, shot or beheaded because of the way you vote, it isn't really a Democracy.

Exactly, you pretty much described what it was like under Saddam's rule. Is it currently still like that? Maybe, but they are clearly making progress away from that kind of atmosphere.

being a socialist requires more than levying taxation /shrug

is the only evidence that Obama is a socialist that he wants to raise taxes on the rich?

Originally posted by KidRock

Maybe, maybe not. I do know that I get called a "war mongering republican" whenever I say I support our troops in Iraq and whenever I say "we shouldn't pull them out immediately" I am again called a war mongering neo-con.

Exactly, you pretty much described what it was like under Saddam's rule. Is it currently still like that? Maybe, but they are clearly making progress away from that kind of atmosphere.

It definately was the Right that initially pushed the "If don't support the war, you hate our troops" rhetoric.

Yet Iraq isn't a Democracy, so by your own rational, you shouldn't want a withdrawl from this "useless" war.

Originally posted by BackFire
You say they're gullible - by default, because of the definition of the word, that implies that it's easy.

In fact, young people are among the most cynical when it comes to politics, they're the least gullible around, hence why it's been so difficult to get them involved in the past.

That said, it's cute how people say Obama is inherently deceiving them by getting them involved finally, as if there can't be good reasons why young people would go for him. Quite stupid, really. Guess that means McCain is deceiving old people by getting them, and veterans, and so on.

Like most things "It's easy If you know how". It's not like it's not been done before, JFK's legacy is an example of this to me. Young people are gullible as they have always been, under the right circumstances (IE having a president that every body hates and a shitty economy) it's easy to capitalize on a nation that is buried in shit, especially on youngsters . Obama's people plaster "Change" all over this campaign and it's not that hard to see why people would take the bait. So, yes the young voters can be still be "gullible", while I think the hard part is finding the perfect words to feed a bunch of young people exactly what they are begging to hear at the time.

As for Mccain he has his own shit to feed old white people.

I don't really get it, would you people prefer it if he promised to keep everything exactly the same?

Originally posted by Blinky
Like most things "It's easy If you know how". It's not like it's not been done before, JFK's legacy is an example of this to me. Young people are gullible as they have always been, under the right circumstances (IE having a president that every body hates and a shitty economy) it's easy to capitalize on a nation that is buried in shit, especially on youngsters . Obama's people plaster "Change" all over this campaign and it's not that hard to see why people would take the bait. So, yes the young voters can be still be "gullible", while I think the hard part is finding the perfect words to feed a bunch of young people exactly what they are begging to hear at the time.

As for Mccain he has his own shit to feed old white people.

So where's the deception? For this to all be a sound claim then we have to accept the idea that he doesn't actually want to or that he won't at least try to bring about some change. And that's pure, baseless theorizing.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I don't really get it, would you people prefer it if he promised top keep everything exactly the same?

Ok, personally:

I believe when Obama is office (I think he will win), he is not going to change anything, and I'd rather not support a liar. One thing that really bothers me about both candidates... I'd rather they not have an "answer" to everything. It seems fake and empty and manipulating. His speeches are cliche and catchy he is too "hip"... too good to be true to me in a way. So yes I am one of those hoping for change as well, but I honestly see nothing inspiring, honest or appealing about Obama or for that matter, Mccain. I'll just wait until they stop flinging shit at each other and step back , look at them and be glad neither of them fooled me.

Originally posted by BackFire
So where's the deception? For this to all be a sound claim then we have to accept the idea that he doesn't actually want to or that he won't at least try to bring about some change. And that's pure, baseless theorizing.

Where does your hope that he is telling the truth come from? My feelings towards that hack is based on many things. As are your hopes that he is what he seems to be.

Telling the truth about what? Wanting to change things? I think he's sincere about that because I've seen/heard no evidence that suggests that he doesn't wan to change things a bit.

I'm asking you where this deception is that you're accusing him of? What has he said and what evidence is there that he is not sincere about what he says?

Originally posted by Blinky
Ok, personally:

I believe when Obama is office (I think he will win), he is not going to change anything, and I'd rather not support a liar. One thing that really bothers me about both candidates... I'd rather they not have an "answer" to everything. It seems fake and empty and manipulating. His speeches are cliche and catchy he is too "hip"... too good to be true to me in a way. So yes I am one of those hoping for change as well, but I honestly see nothing inspiring, honest or appealing about Obama or for that matter, Mccain. I'll just wait until they stop flinging shit at each other and step back , look at them and be glad neither of them fooled me.



Where does your hope that he is telling the truth come from? My feelings towards that hack is based on many things. As are your hopes that he is what he seems to be. That whole supporting an honest person was Bush's 2000 campaign. Do you really wanna go back down that road?

Originally posted by BackFire
Telling the truth about what? Wanting to change things? I think he's sincere about that because I've seen/heard no evidence that suggests that he doesn't wan to change things a bit.

I'm asking you where this deception is that you're accusing him of? What has he said and what evidence is there that he is not sincere about what he says?

Well there certainly are facts that when the shit hits that fan Obama clears out the room. His political record to be honest is not too impressive (if you want facts you should be dying to find this out on your own, since you support Obama). So if you believe he is capable of DOING what he SAYS he is going to do, more power to you. I could believe he wants change all I want... but I just don't think a politician of his caliber is going to do any good. Why do people seem to not want to see the huge weaknesses of their politicians? They seem to turn a blind eye and eat shit when it's handed to them

Originally posted by lord xyz
That whole supporting an honest person was Bush's 2000 campaign. Do you really wanna go back down that road?

No, and I didn't ever go down that road of shit either. I could tell Bush was an idiot and a liar, I just had to sit back and let the Gore sling all the dirt he had on him. I am doing the same with this election, both these candidates reek of shit. Bush reeked of shit and didn't fool me. Obama or McCain won't either

Originally posted by KidRock
Exactly, you pretty much described what it was like under Saddam's rule. Is it currently still like that? Maybe, but they are clearly making progress away from that kind of atmosphere. Saddam Hussein was a heartless and totalitarian dictator, but the Iraqi people were definitely better off under him than they are now.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Saddam Hussein was a heartless and totalitarian dictator, but the Iraqi people were definitely better off under him than they are now.

I wouldn't say they were better off necessarily, but they're still in a sinking shit-hole.

Then again, no one is complelely open in the numbers of Iraqi citizens that have died since the war began.

Originally posted by Blinky
Well there certainly are facts that when the shit hits that fan Obama clears out the room. His political record to be honest is not too impressive (if you want facts you should be dying to find this out on your own, since you support Obama). So if you believe he is capable of DOING what he SAYS he is going to do, more power to you. I could believe he wants change all I want... but I just don't think a politician of his caliber is going to do any good. Why do people seem to not want to see the huge weaknesses of their politicians? They seem to turn a blind eye and eat shit when it's handed to them

No. You're making the claim. It's up to you to support said claim with something (you still haven't). It's not my responsibility to go and research your claim, it's up to you to present the information if you want your claim to have any meaning whatsoever.

I don't necessarily think that he's going to do all he says he's going to do. I do think he WANTS to, though. And that's enough for me.

Originally posted by BackFire
No. You're making the claim. It's up to you to support said claim with something (you still haven't). It's not my responsibility to go and research your claim, it's up to you to present the information if you want your claim to have any meaning whatsoever.

I don't necessarily think that he's going to do all he says he's going to do. I do think he WANTS to, though. And that's enough for me.

It is up to you, you're voting for someone you are not fully informed about. If you don't think it is your responsibility to know more about your hero... that is just sad. I will not provide this readily available info for you, you obviously can read and have access to the internet. Well if Obama shit-talking is enough for you to vote for him, good... it is not for me.

Up to the same old tactics, funny.

Originally posted by Blinky
It is up to you, you're voting for someone you are not fully informed about. If you don't think it is your responsibility to know more about your hero... that is just sad. I will not provide this readily available info for you, you obviously can read and have access to the internet. Well if Obama shit-talking is enough for you to vote for him, good... it is not for me.

Hang on a minute - are you saying that you could provide information that proves Obama does not actually want to change anything if/when he is elected? If so, bullshit.

There's a forum for that sort of baseless chatter - http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f70/ , use it.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Hang on a minute - are you saying that you could provide information that proves Obama does not actually want to change anything if/when he is elected? If so, bullshit.

There's a forum for that sort of baseless chatter -, use it.

I was talking about a VERY specific PIECE of information. Don't put words in my mouth it makes you look silly. I've already established my opinion about his intentions.

What a silly boy, read my post next time.

Originally posted by Robtard
Up to the same old tactics, funny.

Stop flipping already. You bored me already.

Originally posted by Blinky
It is up to you, you're voting for someone you are not fully informed about. If you don't think it is your responsibility to know more about your hero... that is just sad. I will not provide this readily available info for you, you obviously can read and have access to the internet. Well if Obama shit-talking is enough for you to vote for him, good... it is not for me.

I am very informed about him. And in informing myself I've not seen any information that proves that he does not want to do the things he says, or that he does anything of the like that you are claiming that he's done.

And so that's that. You fail at backing up a claim you made, and so your claim is utterly worthless. Simple, basic rules of logical argumentation is that if you make a claim you must provide information to back it up and give it credibility. Otherwise it's just a claim from some guy, and that guy (you) is no authority on his own, so he must source people who are authoritative. You've failed at this, thus you've failed at making your point in a sound manner, and thus even more severely hindered your already baseless (quite literally) argument.

You see, for all I or anyone else knows your source for this information is ihateobama.com or some shit or some other biased source that could be lying or spinning it in a way that makes it sound worse than it actually is. Hence why YOU must provide the information, and the sources for that information.

And if you're going to start bitching about people putting words in your mouth, you'd do well not to put words in other people's mouth. I never said that he was my hero, nor did I say that him simply talking is enough for me.

This is overtly stupid because you say it's a very specific piece of information, yet you don't give any specifics. You apparently want me to google "Obama is a filthy liar who buckles under pressure" and figure out what piece of information you're vaguely referring to.

Originally posted by Blinky
I was talking about a VERY specific PIECE of information. Don't put words in my mouth it makes you look silly. I've already established my opinion about his intentions.

What a silly boy, read my post next time.

Just provide the information, then. That's the way a debate works, if you say you have a source which proves something, you must provide access to this source.

Personally, I don't believe there is any information. If there is, it'll probably be some clutching-at-straws conspiracy theory, from a conspiracy theory website.

Hahaha it makes sense that you're voting for Obama. Maybe you should consider McCcain.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Just provide the information, then. That's the way a debate works, if you say you have a source which proves something, you must provide access to this source.

Personally, I don't believe there is any information. If there is, it'll probably be some clutching-at-straws conspiracy theory, from a conspiracy theory website.

You silly troll I gave a reason for me BELIEVING he will not do anything thing he said. Did I say I had proof he would not do anything? Read my post again you silly man. It was never my goal to prove he was a shit talker, I just gave one of the many reasons that I believe that is what he is. Now sod off. Besides the only dirt I saw (and believe) on Obama is shit that others brought to the light like Clinton... somebody from his own party brought these statistics up.

You said you had information. And then you started acting like a child saying "No I won't tell you but it's true what I say!" more or less.

So, if you have information, share it. If not, well, then you've established your claim as purely worthless.

Originally posted by BackFire
You said you had information. And then you started acting like a child saying "No I won't tell you but it's true what I say!" more or less.

So, if you have information, share it. If not, well, then you've established your claim as purely worthless.

If you don't already know about Obama's PUBLICLY POLITICALLY DOCUMENTED past, then your vote is a waste. Fair Deal.

Originally posted by Blinky
You silly troll I gave a reason for me BELIEVING he will not do anything thing he said. Did I say I had proof he would not do anything? Read my post again you silly man. It was never my goal to prove he was a shit talker, I just gave one of the many reasons that I believe that is what he is. Now sod off. Besides the only dirt I saw (and believe) on Obama is shit that others brought to the light like Clinton... somebody from his own party brought these statistics up.

You claimed you had information on the page just gone. Please, don't bother doing the old dance of saying something and then taking it back - it's there for every one to see.

Also, I'm the troll? Am I the one telling others to sod off? Which coincidentally chimes in with your very un-American syntax - a sock, as well as a troll, perhaps?

So your information is based on a smear from another candidate?

Makes sense, those smears are always factual.

And that still isn't specific. There were a lot of smears.

So I should refine my google search to read ""Obama is a filthy liar who buckles under pressure so says Clinton"?

Now we're getting somewhere.

Originally posted by BackFire
So your information is based on a smear from another candidate?

Makes sense, those smears are always factual.

And that still isn't specific. There were a lot of smears.

So I should refine my google search to read ""Obama is a filthy liar who buckles under pressure so says Clinton"?

Now we're getting somewhere.

Who said that EVERYTHING said against Obama in smear material? Some times things in smear campaigns checks out, ever hear of independent research?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
You claimed you had information on the page just gone. Please, don't bother doing the old dance of saying something and then taking it back - it's there for every one to see.

Also, I'm the troll? Am I the one telling others to sod off? Which coincidentally chimes in with your very un-American syntax - a sock, as well as a troll, perhaps?

Look I already explained what I said to have information on. You accused me of bullshit. Like I said READ MY POST, then we will talk. If you refuse to stop telling me what I think, sod off. You are clearly doing nothing but trying to irritate me me, go collect seashells around the beach with Robtard.

jesus, since when is kmc a redneck forum? O right, since people actually began accusing Obama of being a socialist(which isn't even a bad thing to begin with.)


so lol @ the majority of this thread and a bigger lol @ kidrock.

Originally posted by Blinky
Who said that EVERYTHING said against Obama in smear material? Some times things in smear campaigns checks out, ever hear of independent research?

Look I already explained what I said to have information on. You accused me of bullshit. Like I said READ MY POST, then we will talk. If you refuse to stop telling me what I think, sod off. You are clearly doing nothing but trying to irritate me me, go collect seashells around the beach with Robtard.

Make claim/dodge/counter-accuse/backpedal/cry/repeat. Hey, at least you're consistant and it's oddly fun watching you dance.

Originally posted by Blinky
Who said that EVERYTHING said against Obama in smear material? Some times things in smear campaigns checks out, ever hear of independent research?

You didn't cite independent research, did you? You simply said that it came from someone he was running against at the time.

Originally posted by Blinky
Who said that EVERYTHING said against Obama in smear material? Some times things in smear campaigns checks out, ever hear of independent research?



Look I already explained what I said to have information on. You accused me of bullshit. Like I said READ MY POST, then we will talk. If you refuse to stop telling me what I think, sod off. You are clearly doing nothing but trying to irritate me me, go collect seashells around the beach with Robtard.

You're a c*nt! Right guys?

Originally posted by Blinky
Like most things "It's easy If you know how". It's not like it's not been done before, JFK's legacy is an example of this to me. Young people are gullible as they have always been, under the right circumstances (IE having a president that every body hates and a shitty economy) it's easy to capitalize on a nation that is buried in shit, especially on youngsters . Obama's people plaster "Change" all over this campaign and it's not that hard to see why people would take the bait. So, yes the young voters can be still be "gullible", while I think the hard part is finding the perfect words to feed a bunch of young people exactly what they are begging to hear at the time.

As for Mccain he has his own shit to feed old white people.

Originally posted by chithappens
Yeah, it's not easy to round up a bunch of "KidRocks" to go kick terrorist ass even if we have to run over a nation that has nothing to do with it!

It's the same shit.

I don't see the point.

Originally posted by Blinky
Ok, personally:

I believe when Obama is office (I think he will win), he is not going to change anything, and I'd rather not support a liar. One thing that really bothers me about both candidates... I'd rather they not have an "answer" to everything. It seems fake and empty and manipulating. His speeches are cliche and catchy he is too "hip"... too good to be true to me in a way. So yes I am one of those hoping for change as well, but I honestly see nothing inspiring, honest or appealing about Obama or for that matter, Mccain. I'll just wait until they stop flinging shit at each other and step back , look at them and be glad neither of them fooled me.



Where does your hope that he is telling the truth come from? My feelings towards that hack is based on many things. As are your hopes that he is what he seems to be.

You are missing a very fundamental point: politicians could say they won't raise taxes, actually mean to do it that way, and circumstances (true or false) can change that stance.

It is based on intent but even that can change over time because of the political scene, greediness, suggestion from a secretary who gives great head, etc.

NO POLITICIAN HAS EVER FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH EVERYTHING THEY HAVE SAID. You are a sap.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Saddam Hussein was a heartless and totalitarian dictator, but the Iraqi people were definitely better off under him than they are now.

That hasn't been proven yet. Time will tell.

We know that they aren't being mustard gassed, that's for sure. The every day common citizen is participating in free elections that they never got to do before, that's also for sure.

Saddam kept order but he also kept fear, punishment, and death for any that opposed him. His two sons would've taken over and been worse than him.

Whatever direction the country takes in the future, it's hard for us to say right now that the common citizen wil be worse off than they were before. They are currently in a situation of having a war fought in their country and that is worse, but as I mentioned they are also exploring new freedoms and processes that haven't been available to them in about 40 years.

Again, time will tell if the removal of a dictator and placement of a democratic style government was right or if they were "better off" under the dictator.

(not disagreeing with you either, just saying that it's an open ended thing that we haven't seen the final result of yet.)

Voting doesn't feed your children or keeps your water clean. So far, it has shown that they were "better off" under Saddam since the government has shown to be both corrupt AND ineffective and there is no indication that they will be better off later because of the lack of just nationalism that would be needed to keep the country together. Iraq was just an UN construct with no real thought about the ethnic groups relations towards each other. The reason why Iraq has lasted is totalitarianism.

Indeed.

Stupid democracy, they should go back to the dictatorship.

Voight's got it all wrong, we need a change!

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/z/8/2/hopenosis.gif

Originally posted by sithsaber408
That hasn't been proven yet. Time will tell.

We know that they aren't being mustard gassed, that's for sure. The every day common citizen is participating in free elections that they never got to do before, that's also for sure.

Saddam kept order but he also kept fear, punishment, and death for any that opposed him. His two sons would've taken over and been worse than him.

Whatever direction the country takes in the future, it's hard for us to say right now that the common citizen wil be worse off than they were before. They are currently in a situation of having a war fought in their country and that is worse, but as I mentioned they are also exploring new freedoms and processes that haven't been available to them in about 40 years.

Again, time will tell if the removal of a dictator and placement of a democratic style government was right or if they were "better off" under the dictator.

(not disagreeing with you either, just saying that it's an open ended thing that we haven't seen the final result of yet.) The fact that well over 1 million Iraqis have fled the country and (by last count) 600,000+ Iraqi civilians have been killed, living with hardly any electricity a day (and this is in the Green Zone), I don't think it's debatable that they were better off 5 years ago.

Saddam was a despot, there's no question. But they were still better off under him.

Maybe it will get better after we train the Iraqi police force, get rid of the militias and leave in 16 months under President Obama (haermm), and then focus on Afghanistan, where we should be, Iraq will restabilize, but until that day comes the average Iraqi is in grave peril from a military conflict that they had nothing to do with.

Why the laughter smilie after "President Obama"?


That some kinda lefty humor?

I'll never get the liberal mind.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m271/bzuberi/liberals-brain.gif

Is that supposed to be funny sithsaber? You have a really warped view. Most of the stuff there can be applied to Bush.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Why the laughter smilie after "President Obama"? It was kind of a "no jinx" thing, I think.

I echo xyz on your stupid pictures. Are you trying to be funny? All you're succeeding in doing is lowering your own credibility by going for the cheap laughs.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Indeed.

Stupid democracy, they should go back to the dictatorship.

Voight's got it all wrong, we need a change!
Not really disappointed in this response. Really can't expect more than a 3 year old's approach to arguing.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Is that supposed to be funny sithsaber? You have a really warped view. Most of the stuff there can be applied to Bush. Originally posted by Strangelove
It was kind of a "no jinx" thing, I think.

I echo xyz on your stupid pictures. Are you trying to be funny? All you're succeeding in doing is lowering your own credibility by going for the cheap laughs. Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Not really disappointed in this response. Really can't expect more than a 3 year old's approach to arguing.

I'm just having a bit of fun. Sorry if it throws off the "serious" nature of the thread.



I of course know that I have lost and am only wasting time until president Barrack of Nazareth comes to make everything all better.

Favorite quote:"After a quick meet-and-greet with King Abdullah, Obama was off to Israel, where he made a quick stop at the manger in Bethlehem where he was born." --Jon Stewart, on Barack Obama's Middle East trip

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm just having a bit of fun. Sorry if it throws off the "serious" nature of the thread.



I of course know that I have lost and am only wasting time until president Barrack of Nazareth comes to make everything all better.

Favorite quote:"After a quick meet-and-greet with King Abdullah, Obama was off to Israel, where he made a quick stop at the manger in Bethlehem where he was born." --Jon Stewart, on Barack Obama's Middle East trip

I think they were more referring to the quality of your "fun".

Angelina Jolie may end up agreeing with her famous, yet often estranged father:


"I have not decided on a candidate," she tells the trade paper via her political adviser Trevor Neilson. "I am waiting to see the commitments they will make on issues like international justice, refugees and how to address the needs of children in crisis around the world."

On iraq: "My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families," she wrote, "but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis."

On working for Republican director Clint Eastwood: "Actually, we don't disagree as much as you'd think. I think people assume I'm a Democrat," the actress explained. "But I'm registered independent and I'm still undecided. So I'm looking at McCain as well as Obama."


http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip/8-11-08/?GT1=28101

Or she may not: "I have not decided on a candidate"

voight is an idiot. infact all right wings are morons. hey i dont think angelina wud much appreciate her father's remarks. lets get her oppinion eh?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i dont think angelina wud much appreciate her father's remarks. lets get her oppinion eh?

Ooh yeah, I've been waiting all summer for Angelina's views. But first I need to collect Lindsay Lohan and Ashley Olsen's opinions so i can have something to compare them to.

Originally posted by Robtard
Or she may not: "I have not decided on a candidate"

Aye, she may not. Which is why I said she "may end up sharing her fathers views" as opposed to "Jolie supports McCain."

The fact that she isn't on the hollywood train to Obamanation with Clooney, Affleck, and all the rest is a bit interesting though, at least to me.

She has some real world experience being a UN ambassador visting other countries impovershed areas (including Iraq), and she won't necessarily just back Obama.

Goes to show that educated, informed people who've actually been to the hot spots of the world know that things aren't just so easy as "pull out now and throw money at it."

I like the fact that she made it a point to say that she's NOT a democrat, as many (myself included) probably assumed.Originally posted by leonheartmm
voight is an idiot. infact all right wings are morons. hey i dont think angelina wud much appreciate her father's remarks. lets get her oppinion eh? Did you not read above? She's not necessarily opposed to what her dad is saying and is still waiting to endorse a candidate.

And you're calling right-wingers morons?

Well, I knew that she was a fan of Ayn Rand. No true fan of Ayn Rand can be a convinced Democrat.

yea im calling right winger morons , rent they? well they are mislead at any rate.

Originally posted by BackFire
You said you had information. And then you started acting like a child saying "No I won't tell you but it's true what I say!" more or less.

Ah, the infamous "Across-town Kinko's" sock excuse has returned.



In case this is a little ambiguous, my comment isn't quite directed toward BF.

Originally posted by botankus
Ah, the infamous "Across-town Kinko's" sock excuse has returned.



In case this is a little ambiguous, my comment isn't quite directed toward BF.

Good call, I initially thought it was someone else, but he does bare a striking resemblence to the LAW STUDENT.

I really don't think Angelina Jolie is likely to give a shit what her father thinks considering I don't think she even considers him "family" anymore.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
VOIGHT: My concerns for America
Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people


OP-ED

We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.

Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.

Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.

Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.

If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.

Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.

This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.

Jon Voight is an Academy Award-winning actor who is well-known for his humanitarian work.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/28/voight/
I'm one of those 'young people' that is particularly susceptible to the misleading portrait of Obama. Personally, I'm not sold on either candidate because neither party is convincing me that their candidate has what this nation needs.

Why can't the republicans win me over? Well......they probably could, if they tried. But they can't stop getting obnoxious about the misleading portrait of Obama.