Barack Obama Presumptive Democratic Candidate

Somehow... considering the current Iraq situation i think a lot of people might not be to psyched on joining the military... getting blown up by an IED does not make college worthwhile
 
There's not point in refuting your statements because they are completely rediculous. And you still haven't answered the question. But I'll take it as a yes. You libs rely on the government way to fucking much.

There is no point in arguing with you. Call me a bitch ass pussy - I don't give a flying fuck. All you libs are good for is name calling and trying to make insults.

Anyway...
 
or the crooked real estate guy that sold obama his house and he was friends with but no obama haddd no idea about that.
 
wow there are so many people in this thread that believe so many untrue things about obama. this is so sad.
as for 'yes i believe every word my pastor says' you sir are fucked.
 
untrue like what

That he's buddies with a domestic terrorist

or a big supporter of him was just convicted of bribing polticians

or that his pastor is just as big of a racist as any member of the KKK
 
im gonna throw this out there, but at my job, myself, and a female both do the same job, i actually have more seniority then her..... yet she happens to make a full dollar more then me? how is that fair?
 
perfectly fair. Life is unfair for everyone, sometimes you get handed the short end of the stick, suck it up.
 
yes!

i should suck it up and deal with it, thats exactly what im doing....

wow, i never thought your name would be next to this post....

 
the only thing disabled about me is spelling ;)

can you believe what esct101 wrote, thats exactly the answer i was looking for, but not from someone like him...

lets turn it around, im a female, and i do the same work, as a male, but i get a dollar less an hour... wouldnt that be labeled sexist? so why is it different for a guy?
 
Not really. I was shocked, but I don't think any higher of him.

It would be labeled sexist, but whatever. If someone does the same job you should be paid the same unless you've been working there longer.
 
do i lose you if i say you've got to look at the status quo to pass judgment on whether it's sexist or not?

you label it sexist for a guy because it's a trend that is far too common (he being at an advantage) for it to be just by 'chance' that the woman got the short end of the stick.

i think there needs to be a transition phase where you have 'reparations' (correct term?) to artificially start the random chance of getting the shaft, where you accept that for a while the previously disadvantaged gain assistance at getting the benefit more often than not, but eventually it becomes an legitimately equal-unequal system.
 
i agree, we should have equality of wages....

but at a certain point i need to accept reality and deal with it.... (unless reality is something like i was getting 5 dollars an hour less, same goes for her)
 
my words got all bungled up,

she and I should be getting payed the exact same as, unless a situation warrants otherwise..
 
no i agree to that, but you think that should be implemented immediately? I don't think that's possible, and for a while we aught to 'level the playing field' by subjugating white males to the same sort of inequality that the disadvantaged groups have had to deal with for so long.

to me it's like playing roshambo with one of your mates, kicking him in the balls, then saying he wins. if you're going to throw in the towel, you gotta give the other guys a chance to kick you back.
 
its not like that. its like my great great grandpa kicking his mate in the balls and throwing in the towel, and now, generations down the line, your giving his great great grandchild a chance to drill me in the nuts

we may be the innocent beneficiaries of a racial injustice in the past, but compensation does not fall on, legally or morally, those who may now benefit. If i hurt someone, i have an obligation to compensate that person for whatever actions i may have done. if I die or disapeer, this obligation does not fall into the hands of my son. sometimes wrongs cannot be compensated and we just have to work it out and make the best of an unfair world.
 
Affirmative Action is one topic I agree with you on.

I feel it was necessary and justified in the PAST 30 years, but not in the years to come. Distinguishing people because of race only perpetuates the cycle of racism.
 
sorry to tell you, regardless of the way history was way back then, the result has been that we are at a higher advantage because of an injustice. We have a sense of entitlement to this treatment of 'best', yet we are not entitled.

our great great grandparents might have started it, but it's still going on, and it's still our turn, one continuous kick in the nuts for the past 400 years.

I don't necessarily believe in an eye for an eye, i think we aught to be held to the mercy of those whom were disadvantaged at our advantage.
 
idk where i stand on that. i feel like its necessary but at the same time unfair. for kids that really would get fucked over otherwise its dope but theres a kid at my school thats loaded but stupid as fuck but thanks to the fact that hes native american he easily got into u of i while me with a thousand times better gpa got the big reject....
 
Why does everyone rip on and argue about the candidates weaknesses? When really, everyone should focus on what they are capable of doing and how good of a president they could become. Doing this would definitely be in the best interest for our country. Arguing which candidate will be a better president is completely relative, pointless, and a huge waste of time. It's dividing the U.S. in half.

Just think about how great it would be if everyone quit pointing fingers, stopped, and listed to what the other side has to stay without going into an outrage about how they are wrong and how their candidate is better. Their is no reason why this couldn't happen other than peoples immaturity. No one will ever be right.

Arguing about candidates is like beating a dead horse. You can poke, poke, poke, but in the end, you don't get anywhere.

think about it
 


"It's cunts like you who think they're part of the upper 1% of the population as far as income is concerned, and get up in arms when they're still getting much more than they're paying for. More importantly though, I can't believe you're so out of touch as to think that those with the most money worked the hardest to get there. Taxed to death? Are you fucking kidding me? They're not exactly living check to check."

I would not consider myself upper 1% of the population asshole. And yes I believe most of the people that earn a decent living worked hard to get there. Trust fund babies and old money are only a small minority. And yes I mean taxed to death.

Example: My neighbor who works as a cardio surgeon makes barely enough to pay off his home payments, car payments, and school loans after paying half of his salary to the goverment. I'd say he is living check to check despite all his years of hard work, he is a slave of the government. Yet we have bitches that move into the no income apartments down the street in our same fucking neighborhood who do absolutely nothing because they're single mothers with 3-4 kids from different daddies so they receive their check from the government each month (and before you tell me about generalizing I know for a fact that 50% of the people living there fit that description). What the fuck has this guy worked for? To pay for those sluts living in the apartments down the street? To live in a house rather than an apartment? Give me a fucking break. Fuck the entitled American poor.

"If only they did provide those things... There is no free marketplace, it's a fucking biased system that favors those who already have money to begin with. Education varies IMMENSELY between rich and poor communities. That's wrong. That just enforces the classes which are already in place and makes upward mobility damn near impossible. I'd be willing to bet you came from a pretty affluent family, and you probably have had little to no contact with families who make less than $14,000 annually."

I'd be willing to bet that you are an idiot, its very easy for you to point your finger at all the "evil" and affluent rich people. My father moved to Los Angeles from Chile with my grandmother and they had almost nothing. He grew up in a small apartment and worked his ass off to do well in school and became the 3rd best player below 19 in tennis in California, all the while helping my grandmother put herself through UCLA to become a teacher. Later on he went to a JC, got a scholarship to USC and later went to USC dental school, which left in debt that took 10 years to pay off. But fuck I guess I do come from a very affluent background. Explain to me why the fuck after all that hard work my dad should have to pay half of his salary to support everyone that fucked up. Why should we pay for a war to "liberate" a bunch of ungrateful dune coons? Why should we pay to finance ridiculous salaries and pensions for government employees and bureaucracies? And lastly, why the fuck would we ever want to pay even more taxes to support universal health care? After all his hard work and all the money he's paid to keep the US government afloat, he's rewarded with the same bogus, government run healthcare that Shaniqua down the street (who never paid a dime into the system) gets. I'd hate to have my doctor have the same enthusiasm as the people I deal with at the DMV.

And as far as education no it is not wrong to put more money into areas where education is more valued than in areas where it is not. Even so, anyone can pull themselves up in any American public school with the right amount of determination. The world is not fair, get over it.

And the last part you're wrong again, I've had contact with people that make less than 1,000 dollars annually, think about that for a second. You have no idea what true poverty looks like. I lived in Chile for 7 years, we lived about 2 miles from a slum town. I'm not talking projects, I'm talking people building their own shanty houses out of plastic and plywood poor next to the contaminated Mapocho river in Santiago. Those people no matter how hard they work will never be able to achieve anything unless extremely lucky. They will never have the same incredible opportunities that Americans have the nerve to take for granted. Those are the people I have the utmost sympathy for, so again, Fuck the self induced American poor, they deserve nothing.

"Correlation isn't causality. GDP growth is affected by a lot of things. Even if there's a slim chance that socialized medicine is slowing down GDP growth, I'm ok with it. That's not the only measure of a successful society. Quality of life for all citizens should be considered and IMO is much more important than GDP. I'd rather get everyone over the poverty line and make sure everyone has a roof over their heads and a meal in their stomachs."

If the money for your wonderful and idealistic programs does not come from growth in the economy then where the hell does it come from? There are only so many bonds we can sell to our Chinese friends...

 
i really think its strange how people are just sying to find someone shady or something dishonest that Obama has done when really it is so evident that he is completely lacking... ironically its the conservative counterparts who are massively associated with terrorists like the billionaires in saudi arabia who funded 911 and who fund our war.. and yet the whole damn country flips a bitch because Obama's priest said some unkosher shit and Obama's name sounds just a tad bit too foreign.   the thinking in all that is just so backwards... and people like this tard aspendukes are gonna eat my eyes out for saying this shit when in reality I am being completely civil and realistic.......      inverted world!!? i think so!.
 
Hahaha it's so ironic how all the Anti-Obama pundits on TV are trying to paint Obama's policy as "Dangerous for the Country." And those people chanting, that who are they?

Oh yeah, those are the fucks that helped vote George Bush into Office........ I still clearly remember this website in 04 when all the Bush supporters came out in force throwing around their shitty reasons to vote him back into office.

....sigh....

I read an interesting statement by Joe Biden in the newspaper a while ago. It's not that long. Feel free to read what he said here:

By JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR. • June 1, 2008

Joe Lieberman writes that the Democratic Party he and I grew up in has drifted far from the foreign policy espoused by Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy.

In fact, it is the policies that President George W. Bush has pursued, and that John McCain would continue, that are divorced from that great tradition -- and from the legacy of Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Sen. Lieberman is right: 9/11 was a pivotal moment. History will judge Mr. Bush's reaction less for the mistakes he made than for the opportunities he squandered.

The president had a historic opportunity to unite Americans and the world in common cause. Instead -- by exploiting the politics of fear, instigating an optional war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan, and instituting policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance that fly in the face of our values and interests -- Mr. Bush divided Americans from each other and from the world.

At the heart of this failure is an obsession with the "war on terrorism" that ignores larger forces shaping the world: the emergence of China, India, Russia and Europe; the spread of lethal weapons and dangerous diseases; uncertain supplies of energy, food and water; the persistence of poverty; ethnic animosities and state failures; a rapidly warming planet; the challenge to nation states from above and below.

Instead, Mr. Bush has turned a small number of radical groups that hate America into a 10-foot tall existential monster that dictates every move we make.

The intersection of al Qaeda with the world's most lethal weapons is a deadly serious problem. Al Qaeda must be destroyed. But to compare terrorism with an all-encompassing ideology like communism and fascism is evidence of profound confusion.

Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win.

The results speak for themselves.

On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war.

Beyond Iran, al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 -- are stronger now than at any time since 9/11. Radical recruitment is on the rise. Hamas controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day. Some 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight.

Because of the policies Mr. Bush has pursued and Mr. McCain would continue, the entire Middle East is more dangerous. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are less secure.

The election in November is a vital opportunity for America to start anew. That will require more than a great soldier. It will require a wise leader.

Here, the controversy over engaging Iran is especially instructive.

Last month, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was "naïve and inexperienced" for advocating engagement; "What is it he wants to talk about?" he asked.

Well, for a start, Iran's nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we're stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control.

Sen. Obama is right that the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without "preconditions" -- i.e. without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of any negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until the necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests.

President Nixon didn't demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn't insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush -- whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate -- didn't demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks.

The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb.

Equally unwise is the Bush-McCain fixation on regime change. The regime is abhorrent, but their logic defies comprehension: renounce the bomb -- and when you do, we're still going to take you down. The result is that Iran accelerated its efforts to produce fissile material.

Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct change. We should make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a dangerous nuclear program but also what it stands to gain if it does the right thing. That will require keeping our allies in Europe, as well as Russia and China, on the same page as we ratchet up pressure.

It also requires a much more sophisticated understanding than Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain seem to possess that by publicly engaging Iran -- including through direct talks -- we can exploit cracks within the ruling elite, and between Iran's rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically.

Iran's people need to know that their government, not the U.S., is choosing confrontation over cooperation. Our allies and partners need to know that the U.S. will go the extra diplomatic mile -- if we do, they are much more likely to stand with us if diplomacy fails and force proves necessary.

The Bush-McCain saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It achieves nothing. But it forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders. And it spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right from American wallets into Tehran's pockets.

The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on tension with America is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word "no" from our vocabulary?

It's amazing how little faith George Bush, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have in themselves -- and in America.

Joseph Biden is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.The article is reprinted by permission of the Wall Street Journal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top