|
Post by juancarlos on Feb 4, 2008 10:18:23 GMT -5
What a good excused for him not in the Senate, he’s not pressured to vote. It is easier said than done. It doesn’t change the fact that he is a Kennedy puppet. I bet it was his coach Ed Kennedy that urged him to run even though he’s not fit enough. So who wants a dummy president?!You still don't get it, do you? Obama was not yet an elected U.S. Senator when the Iraq War was voted on by the U.S. Senate in 2003. Therefore, he was not permitted to vote in the U.S. Senate at that time, even if he had wanted to vote. Again, to be able to vote in the U.S. Senate, you actually have to be an elected U.S. Senator first. Now, do you admit that you got your facts wrong? Bill Clinton urged Hillary to run. Does that make Hillary a Bill Clinton puppet?
|
|
|
Post by buff on Feb 4, 2008 11:04:26 GMT -5
Again, it's easy for him to say that he was against the war because he was not pressured to vote because he was not a Senator which is a good excuse for him. Bill Clinton did not urge Hillary to run. Hillary run because she thinks she has what it takes to lead. Hillary was born from a politically oriented family and has her own mind. In fact it was because of Hillary's support that made Bill Clinton a President. It was Hillary and her family that had the political clout and Bill Clinton luckily rode to that fortune.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Feb 4, 2008 16:34:43 GMT -5
Again, it's easy for him to say that he was against the war because he was not pressured to vote because he was not a Senator which is a good excuse for him. Bill Clinton did not urge Hillary to run. Hillary run because she thinks she has what it takes to lead. Hillary was born from a politically oriented family and has her own mind. In fact it was because of Hillary's support that made Bill Clinton a President. It was Hillary and her family that had the political clout and Bill Clinton luckily rode to that fortune. So, now you understand why Obama was not present when the Senate voted to authorize the Iraq War in 2003. Accordingly, do you admit that you were wrong when you said that Obama was not there because he was a coward and was indecisive? In your own words you said: The truth is Obama was absent during the voting time on Iraq War. He did not really vote that time as he was absent. Why was he absent in this important event? Because he was indecisive. He didn’t have a stand. He was claiming he opposed the war but he excused himself by being absent because he doesn’t really know what to do. That is Cowardice. His action did not stand up for his words. Saying that opposing the war yet hiding away come voting time is the worst character for a leader.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Feb 4, 2008 22:16:41 GMT -5
Kennedy didn't do much prior to his presidency either besides be a spoiled rich kid off his families business
that same business was helped built by mafia ties
|
|
|
Post by Roam'n on Feb 4, 2008 22:22:25 GMT -5
gosh, such confusion.
The whole Whitewater thing was just Kenneth Starr trolling for anything to bring down the Clintons. The best he could do was "lying about a bj", which after a $10 million effort is pretty laughable.
In my opinion, it take more knowledge then experience to be a successful politician. Knowledge means you know how to do something. Experience means you know how something was done. How old was Bill Clinton when he took office? What state was he governer of? And what made him think he can run a whole country based on that? But as far as I know he still did a better job then most anybody. Frankly I think Obama is a whole lot more like Bill then Hillary will ever be. I do think Hillary would make a great vice president though... and nothing would put more fear into those redneck republicans then Hillary taking over, should anything happen to Obama.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Feb 4, 2008 22:26:52 GMT -5
The Kennedy and Kerry like Obama because they could used him as their puppet while they play puppeteer. Obama has been using Edward Kennedy as his coach in the senate because he doesn’t know anything. It’s obvious that the two would like to get a piece of the US Presidency that have eluded them for years or even decades. They think that Obama’s charisma would be the answer to their life-long ambition to control the US, that they are all out to disregard friendship for ambition because they couldn’t make the decisive Hillary Clinton their puppet. What is Kennedy and Kerry’s motto behind this – Obama you’ve got charisma based on your modulated voice, even though you stutter in the middle of speech, we’ll be behind, you. You’ve got the charisma, we’ve got the brainiacs, let’s play Puppetry on the US Presidency. The truth is Obama was absent during the voting time on Iraq War. He did not really vote that time as he was absent. Why was he absent in this important event? Because he was indecisive. He didn’t have a stand. He was claiming he opposed the war but he excused himself by being absent because he doesn’t really know what to do. That is Cowardice. His action did not stand up for his words. Saying that opposing the war yet hiding away come voting time is the worst character for a leader. So if I'm voting for Obama I'm really voting for Kennedy? Where do I sign up?
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Feb 4, 2008 22:30:50 GMT -5
People make such a big deal about sincerity. Nixon wasn't sincere, yet got us out of Vietnam and established relations with a former enemy (Korean and Vietnam war) in China. That's the equivalent of the next president getting us out of Iraq and having us establish relations with Iran or Venezuela (much smaller scale than China of course). If Nixon could do the following and we had some machine to bring him back to life, I'd vote for him in an instant. A president's sincerity and trustworthiness count for me a lot. Your insincere Nixon also plunged the nation into a political crisis with his Watergate Scandal. All political candidate spy on one another. Nixon just got caught. And again, he saved thousands of lives when he got the US out of Vietnam And made an alliance with a former enemy that killed thousands of US troops If you can vote for an 'untrustworthy' candidate who can now get out of Iraq, and make an ally out of Russia, would you vote for him? Or are you more concerned about his 'sincerity'?
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Feb 4, 2008 22:31:57 GMT -5
FFS, she's been playing the experience card for ever. 8 years as the President's wife doesn't mean much to me. GWB's dad was President for 4 years and that obviously didn't make him the brightest crayon in the box. She was just as involved during the Clinton presidency as somebody like Rove was in the Bush presidency.
|
|
|
Post by Vestirse on Feb 5, 2008 1:43:38 GMT -5
I live in a super-Tuesday state (California). Everyone I know (including myself) is voting for Obama. The Bay Area in general seems very pro-Democrat with a mostly pro-Obama stance and a smattering of Hillary.
PS - @buff - just admit you were wrong and move on. We got it - you want Hillary to win. You don't need to defend your opinion anymore than that and you certainly needn't put all this effort into making the opposition look bad by saying everything you can think of (right or wrong).
|
|
|
Post by buff on Feb 5, 2008 6:06:54 GMT -5
I'm right when I said that Obama was weak, lazy, dumb, hides behind Kennedy and Kerry's back, indecisive. Should Obama run the democrat, his supporters would be all noise, just like the noise behind Kerry, who would get trounced by a Republican like McCain. In fact I bet you he would perform worst than Kerry carrying the Oprah curse. So long for the people who are supporting Obama because of his "charisma and voice" and your "dummy president" wanna be.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Feb 5, 2008 8:25:42 GMT -5
I'm right when I said that Obama was weak, lazy, dumb, hides behind Kennedy and Kerry's back, indecisive. Should Obama run the democrat, his supporters would be all noise, just like the noise behind Kerry, who would get trounced by a Republican like McCain. In fact I bet you he would perform worst than Kerry carrying the Oprah curse. So long for the people who are supporting Obama because of his "charisma and voice" and your "dummy president" wanna be. Buff, since you still cannot admit that you were wrong about what you said concerning Obama and the vote on the Iraq War, I will replay what I already stated before (and we will not move on until you admit your mistake). You keep on harping about Obama's cowardice, when bravery involves the humility to admit one's mistakes. So, now you understand why Obama was not present when the Senate voted to authorize the Iraq War in 2003. Accordingly, do you admit that you were wrong when you said that Obama was not there because he was a coward and was indecisive? In your own words you said: The truth is Obama was absent during the voting time on Iraq War. He did not really vote that time as he was absent. Why was he absent in this important event? Because he was indecisive. He didn’t have a stand. He was claiming he opposed the war but he excused himself by being absent because he doesn’t really know what to do. That is Cowardice. His action did not stand up for his words. Saying that opposing the war yet hiding away come voting time is the worst character for a leader.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Feb 5, 2008 8:29:14 GMT -5
A president's sincerity and trustworthiness count for me a lot. Your insincere Nixon also plunged the nation into a political crisis with his Watergate Scandal. All political candidate spy on one another. Nixon just got caught. And again, he saved thousands of lives when he got the US out of Vietnam And made an alliance with a former enemy that killed thousands of US troops If you can vote for an 'untrustworthy' candidate who can now get out of Iraq, and make an ally out of Russia, would you vote for him? Or are you more concerned about his 'sincerity'? Nope, won't vote for untrustworthy candidate at all, even if they make "peace" with Kim Jong Il because I wouldn't know for certain at what price that "peace" was achieved.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Feb 5, 2008 21:32:06 GMT -5
Suit yourself.
Just look at Russia's case. Under their 'democracy', their economy was falling apart, and the country was run by mobsters in the '90's. Under an authoratarian in Putin whose allowed government to put his foot on things, Russia is getting wealthy.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Feb 6, 2008 9:06:57 GMT -5
Perhaps Russia had untrustworthy leaders under democracy. Just because you have a democracy does not mean your leaders are trustworthy, and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by ChickenSoda on Feb 6, 2008 15:22:21 GMT -5
When I saw them breaking down the ethnicities, they had Obama with more of the white and black vote, while Hillary had more asians and hispanics.
|
|