John Voight on 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 [yet] 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.

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.

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.