John Voight on Obama

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

I commend you, my friend, for not being a dumbass. Only a political idiot would need the endorsement of a celebrity to contribute to their political positions/decisions. (Sith Saber, I don't mean that as an insult to you: I know you made your decision for McCain before this article.)

On another note (déjà vu?), I like your sig. 😄

Originally posted by chithappens
Yeah, it's not easy to round up a bunch of "KidRocks"...

😆 😆

You cheeky SOB.

😆

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!

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.)

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.

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"?

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!