ATV Florida Forum

General => Open Discussion => Topic started by: big-daddy on September 06, 2008, 04:45:33 PM



Title: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: big-daddy on September 06, 2008, 04:45:33 PM
 
Democrats throwing away American Flags after convention
Republican Recycling
by David Harsanyi
Denver Post Blog
September 6, 2008

This morning, Republicans tell me that a worker at Invesco Field in Denver saved thousands of unused flags from the Democratic National Convention that were headed for the garbage. Guerrilla campaigning. They will use these flags at their own event today in Colorado Springs with John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Before McCain speaks today, veterans will haul these garbage bags filled with flags out onto the stage — with dramatic effect, no doubt — and tell the story.

“What you see in the picture I sent you is less than half of total flags,” a Republican official emailed. “We estimate the total number to be around 12,000 small flags and one full size 3×5 flag.”


I’m not sure what the DNC was supposed to do with unused hand-flags, frankly. But the Republicans are obviously questioning someone’s patriotism here.

There are more photos of flags being trashed at the Pepsi Center where the first days of the Dem convention were held indoors.

I’ve been to many, MANY GOP presidential campaign events over the years and never do I recall seeing a single American flag tossed into the trash after the event. And yes, since I was a key political officer at some of these events I did often stay until the event was over. The flags I have from the events with President Reagan are now treasured reminders of those golden days.

Apparently, Democrats see the flag only as a prop to be discarded when the event was over. Does the flag hold so little meaning for Democrats that they treat it as trash rather than reuse it?

Rescued Flags to Be Reused at McCain Palin Rally

The flags are on their way to a McCain Palin rally in Colorado Springs where the Boy Scouts and Veterans of Foreign Wars will distribute them to the GOP faithful.




http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/...er-convention/


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: cheropride on September 06, 2008, 04:57:49 PM
All I can say is this.... >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

But it doesn't surprise me....  Since Obama voted NO to admend the Constitution PROHIBIT the desecration of the UNITED STATES FLAG....  BTW - McCain voted YES to protect our flag, as did most REPUBLICANS...  Check it out for yourself...  Thank GOD Florida VOTED in Favor of trying to SAVE OUR FLAG!!!!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00189


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: AintSkeered on September 06, 2008, 05:37:47 PM
If you honestly believe that? You're hysterical and unreasonably scared.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: cheropride on September 06, 2008, 05:48:48 PM
If you honestly believe that? You're hysterical and unreasonably scared.

Believe what?  the fact that they threw flags away, or the fact that he voted NO to protect our flag... 

You ask me, you're hysterically in the dark.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: MedicMudder on September 06, 2008, 06:25:00 PM
when they was passing the flags out at the Demo get together in Col,the people had puzzled looks on there faces,they were told to WAVE THEM THEY ARE FLAGS !!!!!


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: klutchbuster400 on September 08, 2008, 12:20:48 AM
I dont believe it.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: gtnwood on September 08, 2008, 11:35:59 AM
Unfortunately it is very true, and also so so sad that the Democratic party or at least the Democratic elite use Old Glory as merely a prop when it's beneficial to them. True I am a registered Republican, but an Independant thinker and I have plenty family members who are lifelong Democrats who are regularly disgusted with their political party but cant bring themselves to change parties because they continue to hold out hope that their party will come back to them and their principles and beliefs.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: fkoney on September 08, 2008, 09:25:42 PM
Subject: Obama explains National Anthem

   

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president. I, for once, am speechless.

He better take sides..........if he is not on the side of AMERICA he MUST NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED for the office he is seeking. We do not need a man in office that will not salute the flag. The world knows how to sing, what they need to know is that the USA will defend what that flag stands for.

Pass It On Before It's To Late.

Let's Teach All of America About This Idiot.

 


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: Able on September 08, 2008, 09:28:57 PM
Subject: Obama explains National Anthem

   

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president. I, for once, am speechless.

He better take sides..........if he is not on the side of AMERICA he MUST NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED for the office he is seeking. We do not need a man in office that will not salute the flag. The world knows how to sing, what they need to know is that the USA will defend what that flag stands for.

Pass It On Before It's To Late.

Let's Teach All of America About This Idiot.

 




It's shocking to think that any American would consider voting for this guy. He has no experience, he's racist, won't honor our flag or anthem, wants to hold talks with terrorists, see's Iran as no threat, yet wants to be the leader of our country. >:(


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: gtnwood on September 08, 2008, 09:45:33 PM
Unfortunately the weak minded simply want change, at any cost. Same thing happened when they elected Clinton and look how that turned out, people have a very short memory >:(


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: klutchbuster400 on September 09, 2008, 04:54:38 PM
I can see Obama rapping this... 3:36 and on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL9ihXiFAko


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: cheropride on September 09, 2008, 05:17:22 PM
Subject: Obama explains National Anthem

   

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president. I, for once, am speechless.

He better take sides..........if he is not on the side of AMERICA he MUST NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED for the office he is seeking. We do not need a man in office that will not salute the flag. The world knows how to sing, what they need to know is that the USA will defend what that flag stands for.

Pass It On Before It's To Late.

Let's Teach All of America About This Idiot.

 



 >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( 

All I can say is this.....  Oh MY GOD!!!!!!  and  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

And will surely pass that on....  Hey, where's the media reporting on all that....  Oh yea, that's right, they are pist off cause Pallin use the "G" word, you know God.....  Now they are preaching, run, run, seperation of church and state......  Give me a break..... 


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: big-daddy on September 09, 2008, 05:57:03 PM
I hope you dont listen to that stuff


I can see Obama rapping this... 3:36 and on
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL9ihXiFAko[/url]


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: grizzlefoshizzle on September 09, 2008, 09:19:03 PM
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk280/amy_the_hotness/obama.jpg)


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: big-daddy on September 10, 2008, 11:30:13 AM
([url]http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk280/amy_the_hotness/obama.jpg[/url])


I like it!


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: TRX450R_Racer on September 10, 2008, 11:59:25 AM
Here's another one. Obama being interviewed, he slips and says my Muslim faith.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/obama-verbal-slip-fuels-his-critics/


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: big-daddy on September 10, 2008, 12:10:02 PM
The lipstick comment:  www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZd_Y_D-RaA


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: AintSkeered on September 10, 2008, 12:25:25 PM
As far as the alleged convention flags issue goes, the Dems should just hire Scooter Libby, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy or the convention's janitor to take the fall. If two gay men or women marry, does one wear lipstick or both? Can a hetero man lawfully marry a bisexual woman? If McCain's not questioning Obama's faith, yet his minions insist upon doing so, how can millions of Americans support McCain? And, since marriage was invented for the procreation of the human species, we need to ban sex change operations, so that the "one  male/one female" rule can't be circumvented, ban any/all childrenless marriages and dissolve any marriage which does not produce a child after the first nine months. :)


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: big-daddy on September 10, 2008, 12:45:15 PM
Afer you pulled a Kerry and chance you post I will do the same


I can't answer the first or second question....but on the third question I can.


Its the right choice!  Country First
As far as the alleged convention flags issue goes, the Dems should just hire Scooter Libby, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy or the convention's janitor to take the fall. If two gay men or women marry, does one wear lipstick or both? Can a hetero man lawfully marry a bisexual woman? If McCain's not questioning Obama's faith, yet his minions insist upon doing so, how can millions of Americans support McCain? And, since marriage was invented for the procreation of the human species, we need to ban sex change operations, so that the "one  male/one female" rule can't be circumvented, ban any/all childrenless marriages and dissolve any marriage which does not produce a child after the first nine months. :)


Just in case you chance it again.......  ;D


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: apkkfx400 on September 10, 2008, 04:23:17 PM
Subject: Obama explains National Anthem

   

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president. I, for once, am speechless.

He better take sides..........if he is not on the side of AMERICA he MUST NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED for the office he is seeking. We do not need a man in office that will not salute the flag. The world knows how to sing, what they need to know is that the USA will defend what that flag stands for.

Pass It On Before It's To Late.

Let's Teach All of America About This Idiot.

 




 >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( 

All I can say is this.....  Oh MY GOD!!!!!!  and  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

And will surely pass that on....  Hey, where's the media reporting on all that....  Oh yea, that's right, they are pist off cause Pallin use the "G" word, you know God.....  Now they are preaching, run, run, seperation of church and state......  Give me a break..... 



http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp




Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: FoxHondaRider on September 10, 2008, 04:30:18 PM
know what kills me... that *************************** (replace with swear words and racial names) Oprah is by Obama's side because its a black thing.  All of these blacks say they are voting for Obama an if you ask them why what views do you like that he has they say "because he's black".  Oprah notice how when she was with other blacks talked like a jungle bunny but when she isnt around them she talks normal?  its not just her its almost all of them.  somewhat normal until they are with eachother.  I hope Oprah goes down with Obama I hear bangs right now lol


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: big-daddy on September 10, 2008, 04:37:29 PM
(http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/2367/nobamate7.jpg)


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: quadracer1992 on September 10, 2008, 09:05:12 PM
Subject: Obama explains National Anthem

   

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president. I, for once, am speechless.

He better take sides..........if he is not on the side of AMERICA he MUST NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED for the office he is seeking. We do not need a man in office that will not salute the flag. The world knows how to sing, what they need to know is that the USA will defend what that flag stands for.

Pass It On Before It's To Late.

Let's Teach All of America About This Idiot.

 

Logically what Obama said makes perfect sence. The anthem does convey a kind of war like message, so I can see why he thinks that way. He wants other countries to like Americans, so mabe by us not being so full of ourselves and flaunting flags all over the place like were the best, other countries might like us more.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: AintSkeered on September 10, 2008, 09:09:40 PM
McCain can't win by simply discussing the real issues of the past several years and thus this kind of thread is occuring. Here's an example of a real issue; http://em.mansellgroup.net/seiu/hcu_20080909.htm


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: kfx400rob on September 10, 2008, 09:25:56 PM
Subject: Obama explains National Anthem

   

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president. I, for once, am speechless.

He better take sides..........if he is not on the side of AMERICA he MUST NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED for the office he is seeking. We do not need a man in office that will not salute the flag. The world knows how to sing, what they need to know is that the USA will defend what that flag stands for.

Pass It On Before It's To Late.

Let's Teach All of America About This Idiot.

 

Logically what Obama said makes perfect sence. The anthem does convey a kind of war like message, so I can see why he thinks that way. He wants other countries to like Americans, so mabe by us not being so full of ourselves and flaunting flags all over the place like were the best, other countries might like us more.

regardless, its disrespect to our country that someone running for president wont wear that small pin. its not even like hes flaunting it like you say, its just a small pin that represents his country.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: AintSkeered on September 10, 2008, 09:34:58 PM
McCain proclaimed himself a maverick only after finally realizing that millions of voters wanted real change, yet, voted with GW over 90% of the time. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: gtnwood on September 11, 2008, 03:52:34 PM
Subject: Obama explains National Anthem

   

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president. I, for once, am speechless.

He better take sides..........if he is not on the side of AMERICA he MUST NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED for the office he is seeking. We do not need a man in office that will not salute the flag. The world knows how to sing, what they need to know is that the USA will defend what that flag stands for.

Pass It On Before It's To Late.

Let's Teach All of America About This Idiot.

 

Logically what Obama said makes perfect sence. The anthem does convey a kind of war like message, so I can see why he thinks that way. He wants other countries to like Americans, so mabe by us not being so full of ourselves and flaunting flags all over the place like were the best, other countries might like us more.
Thats probably the number 1 rerason we are the number 1 nation in the world, and you dont think so GTFO >:D


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: oncewaslost on September 11, 2008, 04:22:02 PM
McCain proclaimed himself a maverick only after finally realizing that millions of voters wanted real change, yet, voted with GW over 90% of the time. [url]http://www.barackobama.com/issues/[/url]



Aty least he voted...ha ha ha whooo!!!  ::) 
 

Obama Trys to Have It Both Ways By Avoiding Votes
Email|Link Posted by Jan McElroy December 22, 2007 02:57 PM
In the December 22 Concord Monitor , it stated that Barack Obama seeks to find common ground, but from his record it looks more like fence straddling to me. He skipped the tough vote on Iran and then distorted what the bill authorized and criticized those who voted for it (including his mentor thingy Durbin, IL-D.) He never had to vote on the Iraq war as a sworn in U.S. Senator pledged to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. A Senator's oath places quite a different set of responsibilities on its bearers from those borne by a private citizen, and yet he acts as if they were equivalent. They certainly are not, and acting as if they are, does him no credit in my view, even though I also was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the beginning.

Obama has a history of dodging commitments on tough votes. In a New York Times article on December 20, Raymond Hernandez and Christopher Drew report that Obama's often voted just "present" in the Illinois Senate. They write:

"In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate. In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator."

He, of course, can give all sorts of reasons why he would just vote "present" and not "for" or "against", and this doesn't include the votes taken when he wasn't even "present" during his years in the state senate. This isn't seeking common ground. Obama is trying to have it both ways by avoiding recorded votes on tough issues for which he would be answerable. Where is the strong leadership in this?



Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: quadracer1992 on September 11, 2008, 11:00:30 PM
Subject: Obama explains National Anthem

   

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president. I, for once, am speechless.

He better take sides..........if he is not on the side of AMERICA he MUST NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED for the office he is seeking. We do not need a man in office that will not salute the flag. The world knows how to sing, what they need to know is that the USA will defend what that flag stands for.

Pass It On Before It's To Late.

Let's Teach All of America About This Idiot.

 

Logically what Obama said makes perfect sence. The anthem does convey a kind of war like message, so I can see why he thinks that way. He wants other countries to like Americans, so mabe by us not being so full of ourselves and flaunting flags all over the place like were the best, other countries might like us more.
Thats probably the number 1 rerason we are the number 1 nation in the world, and you dont think so GTFO >:D
Basically we are a mix of every other nation in the world so I guess that would make it the best. But you never hear of Canada having any problems like the U.S.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: cheropride on September 12, 2008, 04:45:30 PM
McCain proclaimed himself a maverick only after finally realizing that millions of voters wanted real change, yet, voted with GW over 90% of the time. [url]http://www.barackobama.com/issues/[/url]



Aty least he voted...ha ha ha whooo!!!  ::) 
 

Obama Trys to Have It Both Ways By Avoiding Votes
Email|Link Posted by Jan McElroy December 22, 2007 02:57 PM
In the December 22 Concord Monitor , it stated that Barack Obama seeks to find common ground, but from his record it looks more like fence straddling to me. He skipped the tough vote on Iran and then distorted what the bill authorized and criticized those who voted for it (including his mentor thingy Durbin, IL-D.) He never had to vote on the Iraq war as a sworn in U.S. Senator pledged to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. A Senator's oath places quite a different set of responsibilities on its bearers from those borne by a private citizen, and yet he acts as if they were equivalent. They certainly are not, and acting as if they are, does him no credit in my view, even though I also was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the beginning.

Obama has a history of dodging commitments on tough votes. In a New York Times article on December 20, Raymond Hernandez and Christopher Drew report that Obama's often voted just "present" in the Illinois Senate. They write:

"In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate. In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator."

He, of course, can give all sorts of reasons why he would just vote "present" and not "for" or "against", and this doesn't include the votes taken when he wasn't even "present" during his years in the state senate. This isn't seeking common ground. Obama is trying to have it both ways by avoiding recorded votes on tough issues for which he would be answerable. Where is the strong leadership in this?




Okay, I am likin you already..... ;)  Can't be all bad, in my opinion....


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: big-daddy on September 14, 2008, 03:18:28 PM
 Obama admitted that during high school he used marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol.... WTF?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: cheropride on September 14, 2008, 03:37:07 PM
Obama admitted that during high school he used marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol.... WTF?


[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama[/url]


Well now, that explains alot.....


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: apkkfx400 on September 15, 2008, 08:47:07 AM
Obama admitted that during high school he used marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol.... WTF?


[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama[/url]


marijuana, cocaine AND alcohol---a teenager/highschool student experimenting with drugs-don't say it's true!! 


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: AintSkeered on September 15, 2008, 09:18:19 AM
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope he didn't also "lust in his heart" or think inpure thoughts at any time. :)


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: yunt2ride on September 15, 2008, 02:09:39 PM
Obama admitted that during high school he used marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol.... WTF?


[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama[/url]


marijuana, cocaine AND alcohol---a teenager/highschool student experimenting with drugs-don't say it's true!! 


Does that make it ok. Lets see, it must have been peer pressure huh. Wonder how peer pressure (or threats) will play a part when those campaign funders from overseas, gets with him when they get him elected.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: AintSkeered on September 15, 2008, 06:42:12 PM
Today's latest gem from McCain was, "The economy is fundamentally sound". Get your head out yer arse, please. The rest of us don't own 7 homes.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: trx#9 on September 15, 2008, 07:11:57 PM
Today's latest gem from McCain was, "The economy is fundamentally sound". Get your head out yer arse, please. The rest of us don't own 7 homes.
Wrong, he has 9 homes.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: renmus on September 15, 2008, 07:37:30 PM
slum landlord??  :o


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: apkkfx400 on September 15, 2008, 08:01:53 PM
Obama admitted that during high school he used marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol.... WTF?


[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama[/url]


marijuana, cocaine AND alcohol---a teenager/highschool student experimenting with drugs-don't say it's true!! 


Does that make it ok. Lets see, it must have been peer pressure huh. Wonder how peer pressure (or threats) will play a part when those campaign funders from overseas, gets with him when they get him elected.


Doesn't make it right, but, our current president has also admitted to using cocaine in college and I'm sure alcohol was also used and one usually doesn't skip marijuana before being introduced to coke.  Admitting to mistakes and learning lessons in life is only proving that one is human.  If one claims to be perfect-dig deeper.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: CABLEGUY1 on September 16, 2008, 08:44:40 PM
Today's latest gem from McCain was, "The economy is fundamentally sound". Get your head out yer arse, please. The rest of us don't own 7 homes.

Why keep faulting the man for owning several homes? If anything one should be envious.If he was able to manage his money well enough to purchase real estate than good for him. If his money was tied up in stocks or bonds instead of owning houses nothing would be said about it. Dont be hatin. It seems that he would have to be financially wise to achieve that which should be to his credit. AintSkeered if that's the best you have today you may finally be coming to the realization that Osama is losing ground. I'm still stoked about the whole Sarah Palin deal.Talk about pulling a rabbit out of a hat. You just know Bill Clinton is thinking about flavored cigars.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: AintSkeered on September 17, 2008, 07:13:53 AM
Keep your head in the sand and it'll all just get better, right? LOL


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: oncewaslost on September 17, 2008, 08:01:11 AM
Keep your head in the sand and it'll all just get better, right? LOL

you keeps yours there  ;)

McCain family owns 8 properties
By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 8/21/08 4:39 PM EST  Text Size:     
 


John McCain's family owns at least eight properties — not the seven Democrats are alleging or the four McCain's staff identified — according to a Politico analysis of property and tax records, as well as interviews.

 
John McCain's family owns at least eight properties — not the seven Democrats are alleging or the four McCain's staff identified — according to a Politico analysis of property and tax records, as well as interviews.

The presumptive Republican nominee, though, may have some wiggle room in explaining why he couldn't immediately provide an answer when asked by Politico how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own. Sen. McCain himself does not own any of the properties. They're all owned by Cindy McCain, her dependent children and the trusts and companies they control.

Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman, did not question Politico's analysis, but said his boss's bungling of the how-many-homes question is a nonissue.

"Voters care a lot more about candidates' personal ethics than about how many houses or residences or doghouses that John and Cindy McCain own," he said. He questioned efforts by McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, to exploit the issue, given that Obama benefited from a 2005 land deal with the wife of convicted Chicago businessman — and former Obama fundraiser — Tony Rezko that expanded the Obama family's newly purchased $1.65 million homestead.

"The reality is that Barack Obama purchased his million-dollar mansion in a shady deal involving a convicted felon, and it raises questions about his ethics and judgment," said Rogers.
Politico's analysis of the McCain records found that five of the eight properties were purchased between the summer of 2004 and this February, for a total of $11 million. And the analysis found that the McCains hired additional household help in 2007.

The five new properties are all condominiums, and they include three in Phoenix — one of which became the couple's primary Phoenix residence after a Cindy McCain family trust in 2006 sold for $3.2 million the house in which they raised their children — and a pair outside San Diego.

The new properties joined three previously owned by Cindy McCain, her dependent children and their trusts: a scenic ranch outside Sedona, Ariz., where John McCain has entertained staff, prospective running mates and political reporters; a three-bedroom Arlington, Va., condo that's been John McCain's Washington-area residence since 1993; a La Jolla, Calif. condo that is home to Cindy McCain's elderly aunt and on which the trust recently paid nearly $7,000 in back taxes.

The condo that serves as the McCain's primary Phoenix residence was purchased in 2006 for $4.7 million by Cindy McCain's trust. It is a 6,600-square foot unit.

See Also
Group plays Ayers attack
Poll: Majority wants church out of politics
McCain sparks water rights blowup
Politico's guide to the conventions
Less than one year after the McCains acquired it, a corporation controlled by Cindy McCain bought another condo on a lower floor in the same building for $830,000.

And, in between, the corporation plunked down $700,000 for a 1,900-square-foot, three-bedroom loft condo for their then-22-year-old daughter, Meghan, who was moving back to Phoenix after graduating from New York's Columbia University. The unit is now listed for sale at $730,000.

Cindy McCain, through another family corporation, spent about $4.7 million in 2004 and 2008 on two condos in an exclusive building in Coronado, Calif., an affluent San Diego suburb noted for its high percentage of military retirees.

In an interview with Cindy McCain in the June issue of Vogue magazine, conducted from the newer Coronado condo, she explained that her husband, a Navy veteran, initially wasn't keen on the idea of a pied-à-terre in Coronado.

"When I bought the first one, my husband, who is not a beach person, said, 'Oh this is such a waste of money; the kids will never go,'" she said in Vogue. "Then it got to the point where they used it so much I couldn't get in the place. So I bought another one."

 A McCain campaign aide who did not want to be identified discussing the McCain's personal finances, told Politico this summer that — other than the primary Phoenix residence — the new condos were "purchased for investment and are available for personal use by the McCain family."

The McCains increased their budget for household employees from $184,000 in 2006 to $273,000 in 2007, according to John McCain's tax returns.

The additional cash supports an "increase in the number of employees," the McCain aide told Politico. The aide did not answer a question about whether the growing staff stemmed from addition of new properties to the family's real estate portfolio.
 


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: big-daddy on September 17, 2008, 04:01:40 PM
from the horses mouth  :o  http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr09-03-08.html


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: CABLEGUY1 on September 17, 2008, 06:23:15 PM
BD,that made my day.That's got to be the funniest thing I've seen in a while.Especially the end when he gets on a roll.LMAO.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: big-daddy on September 17, 2008, 06:49:08 PM
the boy can talk up a storm. ;)


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: cheropride on September 17, 2008, 07:42:43 PM
I tell you what, when I started watching it, I thought it was really going in another direction....  That boy is a role....  He's Mama told him...  Post this up...  to funny, that man is on a role....  It sure was not what I was expecting though... Good find BigDaddy....  That just sounds funny....  Obama's mama.... too funny....  What a trip... 


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: renmus on September 17, 2008, 07:44:13 PM
She was trash!

That man wore my ears slap out after 4 minutes or so.  He made some logical points, that is for sure!


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: jujulo700R on September 17, 2008, 09:33:37 PM
This is actually one of the most ignorant and ridiculous segments I have seen in a long time. Nobody that talks with that much hatred and disrespect is a man of God. Obama told the media that Palin’s family was off limits so why is he attacking Obama’s family with such despicable and insulting language. This so called “reverend” has already been written off in society as a complete imbecile. The thing that gets me most is that some people seem to think it is funny, but honestly, how would you feel if someone said these cruel things about your own family. Not so funny then.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: big-daddy on September 18, 2008, 06:43:34 AM
Take a Chill pill their buddy......... that was funny!  And my MAMA told me too she TRASH.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: AintSkeered on September 18, 2008, 06:44:23 AM
It's just another very desperate attempt to dispel the hope and optimism Obama brings to the campaign. On a more important note, this morning, the Repubes backed-off on calling the economy "fundamentally sound" and are now calling it "resilient". That's their version of hope and optimism! Don't have to fix it, if it ain't broke is the plan? 


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: big-daddy on September 18, 2008, 09:34:33 AM
Classic.......... "Let's talk about that trash that HATCHED Obama"


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: yunt2ride on September 18, 2008, 02:42:40 PM
This is actually one of the most ignorant and ridiculous segments I have seen in a long time. Nobody that talks with that much hatred and disrespect is a man of God. Obama told the media that Palin’s family was off limits so why is he attacking Obama’s family with such despicable and insulting language. This so called “reverend” has already been written off in society as a complete imbecile. The thing that gets me most is that some people seem to think it is funny, but honestly, how would you feel if someone said these cruel things about your own family. Not so funny then.

He is just telling it like the democrats were putting it out there in the media. The media was just looking for a good story to get on TV before their competition. Right after everyone found out that her daughter was 17 and pregnant out of wedlock, the democrats jumped on that bandwagon. Do you know that Obama could have been all behind it, but felt like if he came on news and said family is off limits it would make him look like an outstading person and get the media focused on him instead of Palin. I know if I was running for president I would have had someone spill it to the media and then come on to say that family is off limits. Its how you play the game, and yes, it is a game.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: cheropride on September 19, 2008, 07:11:35 PM
This is actually one of the most ignorant and ridiculous segments I have seen in a long time. Nobody that talks with that much hatred and disrespect is a man of God. Obama told the media that Palin’s family was off limits so why is he attacking Obama’s family with such despicable and insulting language. This so called “reverend” has already been written off in society as a complete imbecile. The thing that gets me most is that some people seem to think it is funny, but honestly, how would you feel if someone said these cruel things about your own family. Not so funny then.

Ok little slow in here tonight, and just saw this.... 

So wait a minute, you call this ignorant and ridiculous...  I guess what to good ole Rev Wright was not....  That's funny right there, I don't care who you are...  Oh yea, by the way, lighten up Frances....  I am sorry that was alot funnier then listening to good ole Rev Wright preach his hate not only against a race, but against the entire Nation....  And don't come back and say, well that's not Obama stands for...  Wake up..  Rev Wright was Obama's Preacher for 20 years, married him, and baptisted his children...  So you know the whole Rev Wright, that is what makes this video all that more ironic.  Where were you when Wright was using the N word, and putting down this Country, and stating that we blew up the Trade Centers.... So I am just curious what is your stand on that....   


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: jujulo700R on September 20, 2008, 12:13:28 AM
Ok seriously. What part of that tirade was actually funny? The people that I showed that clip to were shocked, saddened, disappointed, confused, and angry, but nobody thought it was funny. Yes I do call it ignorant and ridiculous and what would make you think that I wouldn’t think the same about the Rev Wright situation? I think what Rev Wright said was actually just as bad if not worse than what James Manning said. As far as Obama’s stand on it, I am still on the fence about that. I try to view everything from both sides. I can see where someone could say “Wait a minute. He was a member of his church for 20 years so he must feel the same way too”!  Then I think, how can I judge Obama or anyone on the actions of someone else? My best friend attended a church in his home town for over 25 years and last year his Pastor was arrested for touching children inappropriately. So are you saying that since my best friend attended his church for over 25 years that he is a pedophile too? My good friend (who is of another race) that I met in college has a father that is an outspoken racist. So by your views, since he grew up with his father his entire life, that my good friend (who was also one of my groomsmen) is also a racist? You just can’t attack someone because of something that someone else says or does. Rev Wright could have snapped and gone off the deep end for all we know. Obama did the right thing by denouncing Rev Wright and his church and stating on air that he was displeased and disappointed with Rev Wright’s actions. Until I see concrete evidence that he feels the same as Rev Wright, I can’t hold him accountable for the poor actions of someone else. I guess I am one of the only people that still believes in “Innocent until PROVEN guilty”.   


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: CABLEGUY1 on September 20, 2008, 12:57:36 AM
Not so.Alot of us still believe in innocent until proven guilty.It's just that in this case Obama is proven guilty. He was a member of that church for twenty years and it's priciples have not changed nor has the Reverend Wrights priciples or beliefs. He was preaching those same beliefs the entire time Obama attended his church and yet he continued to be an active member of that church which proves him guilty of holding it's same values. Obama cant hide from the facts of his past which includes his church,his book,his voting record etc etc. Mr Wright didn't snap as you suggested.He has not strayed from his anti white anti goverment stance the entire time. And the difference between Obama being a member of that church for twenty years and someone being a member of a church that has a pastor that was a pedophile is that Obama continued to go back and listen to those racist sermons for twenty years where as if a pedophile pastor openly admitted to touching children people would not continue to attend. Face the facts.Obama cant hide from his past.He can try to put a spin on it but he cant hide from it. He got caught with his pants down. My mama and my mamas mama said Obamas mama was no good. I still think that was a riot.Thanks BD.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: jujulo700R on September 20, 2008, 03:18:22 AM
How is he guilty? I didn't read anything in his book that said he was a racist. I must have missed that part. Did you know that the church he attended is affiliated with the United Church of Christ, a predominantly white Christian denomination that oversees many of the churches that they are affiliated with. Did you know that other races (including White people) routinely visited and spoke at the church that Obama attended? Rev Wright is somebody I would described as an opportunist. He could have started the whole controversy just to be put in the spot light. Unless you can produce some actual evidence of the Rev Wright going on a racist tirade before Obama  was in the picture, I am still going to keep an open mind until I see the evidence that proves otherwise. One more thing, I actually know of two incidents where preachers came out and confessed to being pedophiles and yet they still were able to carry out their regular duties. One was able to come back after he got psychiatric help and the other had to help build a community center for children! I guess all the people that forgave them must have been pedophiles too.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: yunt2ride on September 20, 2008, 08:37:56 AM
How is he guilty? I didn't read anything in his book that said he was a racist. I must have missed that part. Did you know that the church he attended is affiliated with the United Church of Christ, a predominantly white Christian denomination that oversees many of the churches that they are affiliated with. Did you know that other races (including White people) routinely visited and spoke at the church that Obama attended? Rev Wright is somebody I would described as an opportunist. He could have started the whole controversy just to be put in the spot light. Unless you can produce some actual evidence of the Rev Wright going on a racist tirade before Obama  was in the picture, I am still going to keep an open mind until I see the evidence that proves otherwise. One more thing, I actually know of two incidents where preachers came out and confessed to being pedophiles and yet they still were able to carry out their regular duties. One was able to come back after he got psychiatric help and the other had to help build a community center for children! I guess all the people that forgave them must have been pedophiles too.


Well said. You beat me to this same response.

Not so.Alot of us still believe in innocent until proven guilty.It's just that in this case Obama is proven guilty. He was a member of that church for twenty years and it's priciples have not changed nor has the Reverend Wrights priciples or beliefs. He was preaching those same beliefs the entire time Obama attended his church and yet he continued to be an active member of that church which proves him guilty of holding it's same values. Obama cant hide from the facts of his past which includes his church,his book,his voting record etc etc. Mr Wright didn't snap as you suggested.He has not strayed from his anti white anti goverment stance the entire time. And the difference between Obama being a member of that church for twenty years and someone being a member of a church that has a pastor that was a pedophile is that Obama continued to go back and listen to those racist sermons for twenty years where as if a pedophile pastor openly admitted to touching children people would not continue to attend. Face the facts.Obama cant hide from his past.He can try to put a spin on it but he cant hide from it. He got caught with his pants down. My mama and my mamas mama said Obamas mama was no good. I still think that was a riot.Thanks BD.


You want proof. Even Oprah said that she quit the church for the same reasons. And Obama stayed. Here is a video from a sermon at his church in 2003. He just quit his church.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwQWuQVE6sw


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: cheropride on September 20, 2008, 02:48:45 PM
Holy smoke...  I could not what I was hearing...  Dreams of My Father, and other clips....  Holy crap....  Most of is Obama's recording of his Book, Dreams of My Father, it's funny how the audio book leaves some things out, so read when it's quite.  But even the audio part is shocking enough.... 

Why are not these excerts of his book on Media outlets...  Wow....


You have to take the time listen....  This man wants to be our PRESIDENT!!!  YOU MUST LISTEN...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs&feature=related




Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: FishaHallic on September 20, 2008, 05:15:08 PM
(http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkkk2.jpg)


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: big-daddy on September 20, 2008, 11:25:52 PM
([url]http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkkk2.jpg[/url])


Hey Fish...... which one are you in the picture are you.


(http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/90/avatar21827198sl9.jpg)



Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: FishaHallic on September 21, 2008, 12:40:23 AM
My picture is not there but a lot of people think I am  (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:e5bsDYQz3HQJ::www.mlahanas.de/Physics/Bios/images/AlbertEinstein.jpg)

compared to republicans  ;D


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: big-daddy on September 21, 2008, 09:06:08 AM
I guest you have a dream too!  ::)

Look at the people next to Obama...... hahahaha I think they smell Bull Sh!t.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: cheropride on September 21, 2008, 09:48:01 AM
I guest you have a dream too!  ::)

Look at the people next to Obama...... hahahaha I think they smell Bull Sh!t.


[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840[/url]




That was priceless....  Too funny....


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: cheropride on September 21, 2008, 12:12:22 PM
I don't care who you are, this is funny....  They should call it the nonononono video....  I thought it was funny.... 

"This would be what it would be like if me and Obama sat down to have a talk....LOL

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/bill-oreilly-obama-interview/1430047774





Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: FishaHallic on September 21, 2008, 01:22:54 PM
I guest you have a dream too!  ::)

Look at the people next to Obama...... hahahaha I think they smell Bull Sh!t.


[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840[/url]



Your right, I do have a dream and the dream is we are not living in the nightmare of a Bush administration.  Though I would rather have Obama, even McSame would be better than what we have now.


Title: Re: Obama for what? NOT!
Post by: gtnwood on September 21, 2008, 01:36:27 PM
I don't care who you are, this is funny....  They should call it the nonononono video....  I thought it was funny.... 

"This would be what it would be like if me and Obama sat down to have a talk....LOL

[url]http://video.aol.com/video-detail/bill-oreilly-obama-interview/1430047774[/url]





Purty darn funny ;D