The Spread of Obama Attacks - We Report, You Decide?

reply to post by Dronetek


*sigh*
There you go, leaving out information again.

How can Barack Obama vote on a United States Senatorial bill, (The Iraq War) if, at the time of the vote, he was not a United States Senator

Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate in January 2003. After winning a landslide primary victory in March 2004, Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote.

Source



He opposed it, verbally, publicly, and openly, from the beginning.

Ok, I'll give you that one, but its also not the complete truth to say he was against it from the beginning. He wasn't there from the beginning and we have no way of knowing how politics might have influenced his decision.

reply to post by Dronetek

Ok, I'll give you that one, but its also not the complete truth to say he was against it from the beginning. He wasn't there from the beginning and we have no way of knowing how politics might have influenced his decision.

....wow, you jjust dont know when to give up :shk:


He was there since the beginning, and he did oppose it since the beginning.

He was a ILLINOIS SENATOR from the beginning.

On October 26, 2002, Obama said: "I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A war based not on reason but on passion."

In 2002, when Obama opposed war with Iraq, he knew he would run for the Senate in 2004 and this stand might cost him the election. No other major Democratic candidate for president opposed the war before it happened.

Source


[edit on 7/9/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

No "witty" come back to this one?

Im curious



A few anti-obama people have expressed their own disliking for the war, accuse Obama of never "opposing" the war, but now that i prove he has...the room fell so quiet you can hear a mouse fart



Do you anti-obama folk want to seriously tell me this has ZERO impact on your like/dislike of the man?

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
No "witty" come back to this one?

Im curious



A few anti-obama people have expressed their own disliking for the war, accuse Obama of never "opposing" the war, but now that i prove he has...the room fell so quiet you can hear a mouse fart



Do you anti-obama folk want to seriously tell me this has ZERO impact on your like/dislike of the man?

You're pretty arrogant for as many times as you've been smacked down. I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I already conceded the point to you earlier.

I think I'm going to go find all your smack downs and demand you have a "witty comeback".

reply to post by Dronetek


I eagerly await your list

But i still ask the question


You attack Barack Obama for not opposing the war "from the beginning" (the spread of obama attacks IS the thread topic)

but i prove to you he did, in fact, oppose the war.

Should i accept your silence as an answer, or does it in ANY WAY change your mind in the slightest bit about Barack Obama?

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by EverythingYouDespise

 

That was hardly a far right issue. I seem to remember quite a lot of Democrats and liberals jumping onboard. Sure, there was plenty of opposition to the invasion (I did not support it myself), but not among most of Congress.

Barack Obama refused to support it from Day 1.

Who cares what he did back when he was a state senator!

reply to post by EverythingYouDespise


Well, if that is not an issue for you (opposition to a pointless war) then thats fine. Nobody is saying that it should be an issue for YOU

however, other people in this thread would disagree with you.


And..i do think you should give it a chance to think his political past (il senator) will give you a glimpse into his future

Originally posted by Societalgnorance
reply to post by EverythingYouDespise

 

This goes for Lloyd as well.......you're both either political plants, or brainwashed morons......I'm gonna say it's both.

FOX NEWS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE STATE - RUN MEDIA IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY. IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPAGANDA MACHINE.....YOU CAN'T BE THAT DUMB TO NOT NOTICE IT.

I have never been so angry reading an opinion on the internet in my life.

Are you implying that the other channels have less influence by the government? If so, YOU CAN'T BE THAT DUMB TO NOT NOTICE IT. Sorry for the harsh words, but I think I read them somewhere.

Do you anti-obama folk want to seriously tell me this has ZERO impact on your like/dislike of the man?

Absolutely none. Maybe if he wasn't a tool and actually stuck with his guns like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, but he is just a well crafted hand puppet.

Barack Obama's website. LINK

He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

emphasis added

So he is saying that if things remain hostile in Iraq (stay the same) then we will keep doing exactly what we are doing now(whack-a-mole). Obama is not anti-war. He is a liberal. Liberals are not historically anti-war, thus they have no stake in the anti-war movement beyond fancy rhetoric that tricks the public.

Look at Iran, Obama and McCain both are harping preemptive war. Is he going down the road of Pelosi with AIPAC? He is already there, otherwise he wouldn't be the Democrat Nominee for POTUS. H

Obama is either a sell-out or a Liar.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


As Ed McMahon used to tell Johnny Carson"You Are Correct Sir!!".
O'Reilly;Hannity;Savage;Coulter;Medved and all the rest of the Talk Radio/Faux Snooze crowd are really just Closeted Faggots!!!

perfect editing, good for you

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
Look at Iran, Obama and McCain both are harping preemptive war. Is he going down the road of Pelosi with AIPAC? He is already there, otherwise he wouldn't be the Democrat Nominee for POTUS. H

Obama is either a sell-out or a Liar.

So your saying that both Obama and McCain have the same plan for Iran, but Obama is the sellout, and you don't complain at all about McCain. Why is that?

If Obama doesn't sound tough against Iran, you would say he is weak. If he does sound tough, now he is a sellout. Another no win scenario that you would see on Fox.

I do agree that the Israeli lobby has unbelievable influence in Washington and I think it is time to restrict it, and let Israel take care of their own problems.

If Obama doesn't sound tough against Iran, you would say he is weak. If he does sound tough, now he is a sellout. Another no win scenario that you would see on Fox.

Let's be clear. McCain is not the point of this thread. I can harp on about McCain(and his horrible politics on foreign policy among other things), but people on ATS seem to be convinced that Obama is for 'change' when he is a standard bearer for the establishment. McCain sold out America long ago, but Obama is doing it now, in front of our eyes.

By 'you' I hope you (as in you... yourself) do not mean myself. I dislike FoxNews, but it fills a void in American Politics the Cnn, NBC or any other MSM outlet can appease. Certain people like neoconservative politics, I could only wish some news organization could speak for me(and other ATS people as a whole) who feel that everything we are fed is garbage.

So your saying that both Obama and McCain have the same plan for Iran, but Obama is the sellout, and you don't complain at all about McCain. Why is that?

Is this you conceding that Obama is a sellout if McCain is one also? If this is the case you have a strong affirmation from me that the two big parties are both sellouts, and Obama and McCain are the epicenter of selling out the American people for personal and corporate gain.

If Obama was for'change' then he would sound an aweful lot like Kucinich.

I do agree that the Israeli lobby has unbelievable influence in Washington and I think it is time to restrict it, and let Israel take care of their own problems.

I agree it is a problem, but to restrict it is to restrict the first amendment. AIPAC simply needs to be expose for who they are, much like the KKK was exposed by Stetson Kennedy in the 20th century. here is a link to wikipedia of Kennedy

edit: grammer

[edit on 10-7-2008 by DINSTAAR]

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
Let's be clear. McCain is not the point of this thread. I can harp on about McCain(and his horrible politics on foreign policy among other things), but people on ATS seem to be convinced that Obama is for 'change' when he is a standard bearer for the establishment. McCain sold out America long ago, but Obama is doing it now, in front of our eyes.

Bold emphasis added.

Which establishment are you referring to? The two party system or the democratic party? If he were the typical politician in Washington, then why has he ordered the democratic party to not accept contributions from lobbyists like AIPAC?

Obama's In Control: No More Lobbyist Contributions To Democratic Party

By 'you' I hope you (as in you... yourself) do not mean myself. I dislike FoxNews, but it fills a void in American Politics the Cnn, NBC or any other MSM outlet can appease. Certain people like neoconservative politics, I could only wish some news organization could speak for me(and other ATS people as a whole) who feel that everything we are fed is garbage.

No I did not mean you specifically. I was just pointing out how anyone can spin any policy anyway they want, and in the case with Fox it will always be against Obama. Here is a test for anyone to try. Try to find a clip from Fox that is complimentary of Obama. If you can't find one to counter all the others in the video BH posted, then that should tell you something.

If Obama was for'change' then he would sound an aweful lot like Kucinich.

Being from Ohio, I like Dennis, and locally he still can hold his own, but nationally he is viewed as too radical, like Ron Paul. I also think we need a shake up in Washington, but most people are afraid of radical change, but they still want change. Obama is walking that fine line as best as anyone can.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
I agree it is a problem, but to restrict it is to restrict the first amendment.

By the first amendment, do you mean freedom of speech? What I meant by restricting lobbyists, I was referring to campaign contributions, party favors, ect. I am not sure if more restrictions would be violating their rights or not, but that is an interesting take.

By the first amendment, do you mean freedom of speech? What I meant by restricting lobbyists, I was referring to campaign contributions, party favors, ect. I am not sure if more restrictions would be violating their rights or not, but that is an interesting take.

The easiest way to restrict lobby groups is to expose who they are. No politician would be willing to accept funds from a group that the public dislikes.
example: politicians would not accept donations from the KKK because the KKK has been exposed to the public as bigots and they do not want their campaign related in any way to the KKK.

100 years ago, politicians were open about involvement in the KKK and it was common to receive their endorsement. We need to do the same to groups like AIPAC.

Which establishment are you referring to? The two party system or the democratic party?

Yes

Originally posted by Dronetek

Originally posted by Hal9000
reply to post by Dronetek

 

I think this is getting too far off topic, but if you do find something, send it to me in a u2u and I will check it out. Thanks.

I found it actually. A letter sent by Kerry, signed by many prominent Democrats. Asking Clinton to invade Iraq based on WMD threat.
www.e-thepeople.org...

To be clear this is a different letter than the one sent from PNAC to Clinton, and it calls for military action in the form of missile strikes, not invasion.

In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

The PNAC letter also only asks for military action but says that is what should be used to remove Saddam. More importantly, it shows the real reasons for war as being for Israel and oil. Because the PNAC sight is no longer available I have to rely on a text version of the letter from o blog.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

PNAC letters sent to President Bill Clinton

Again I'd ask, where is the thread about attacks against McCain?

Maybe you don't see them because he is not being slandered the same way Obama is like in the video in the OP. Sure the media may will also show how he has flip-flopped, but they don't make any ridiculous claims.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
The easiest way to restrict lobby groups is to expose who they are. No politician would be willing to accept funds from a group that the public dislikes.

I would agree this has worked in the past, but I think in the case of AIPAC, it is different. They do throw a lot of money around, but I think it has more to do with sympathy for the holocaust. Anyone that criticizes them is made to look anti-semite and that is a career killer, so no one is willing to do that.

Which establishment are you referring to? The two party system or the democratic party?

Yes

Well as bad as the two party system is, it is the only one we have, so I will play along until something better comes along.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
If Obama was for'change' then he would sound an aweful lot like Kucinich.

He is for change. That's one thing I'll give the man.

He changes his stance on the issues on a daily basis!