Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/sen-obama-will-consider-2008-white-house/20061022103909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

What do you guys think about this guy Obama?

Personally I would like to see him run. He seems level headed and not extreamly to the left, or to the right. I love politicians who can keep things in perspective...

As of right now I don't know too much about him though. Care to fill me in?

Sounds like this thread may be a bit too political.. but try and control any urge to ruin it.

It's just really a "I like him because..." or "I dont like him because..."

I like him a lot.  Hes very intelligent and moderate.  However I don't think he has enough experience to run in 2008.  To me he is like a top draft pick in pro sports...you can throw him to the wolves now or let him get some minor league experience that is crucial to his long term development.  Hes a young guy, no rush for 2008 (unless the Dems have NOBODY else - their ranks are kinda thin  :-\ )

I agree, I don't think he has enough experience for 2008. Would be a good candidate for 2012 possibly. IMHO it's going to be McCain vs. Gore. Hilary will run, but not win the democratic primary, have a good showing though, being that she's the first female to run.

Like -Jack- said, not try to make to overly political with who's better/worse, good/bad etc..

I don't know, I think Rudy might give McCain a run for his money - even though hes an italian NY'er with a not so stellar "family values" record, his 9-11 heroics are remembered by everyone in the country and he is extremely well respected.  He also has a proven track record in turning NYC around.

I think Gore is the best chance the dems have in 08, but I wonder if he'll even run.  should be very intresting.  Personally I think a Gore/Hillary or Gore/Obama ticket would be pretty exciting.

No idea who the Dems will put out; can't see Obama having political popularity on a national level.  Great speaker, though.  Kerry has all but acknowledged that he's seeking the nomination again.

The Republican candidate in 2008 will be Newt Gingrich.  You heard it here first.  Rudy is Catholic, so he's got no shot.  And the neo-con base that now controls the GOP hates McCain. 

I actually read that over the weekend, so it wasn't here first ;) hehe.  for real though, i have read/heard that a lot lately.  The current admin loves him.  Rudy is def a long shot with his background, but he is so well known nationally.  as for the neo-con base, i think they're about to become extinct, people aren't buying into it anymore and McCain has pandered to the far right recently (much to the chagrin of his base and independent voters).

i feel bad for kerry, hes got NO shot.  i actually like him more after his 04 defeat then i did during it, hes finally grown some balls, but too little too late.

i think its going to be gore or hillary

What about this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwODbl3muE

Chappelle did a funny skit about that (Was is his lost "3rd season") He did a "What If" sketch about what if that became a polular catchphrase. "Byahhhhhh". They were saying it on Sportscenter, at work, in dept stores etc.. Was funny, a little dated now though.

There's actually 2 feeds of that speech, one with the crowd reaction, one with the crowd volume drastically lowered. If you listen to it with the crowd cheering, it's not as funny or stupid, but the media grabbed hold of the other version and took it and ran with it, making a mockery of him.. The rest is as the say 'history'.

i think he'd make a great candidate and would probably win. so naturally he'll lose in the primaries. ?:hihi:

his stock is high right now and i believe you have to strike while the iron is hot. alot could happen in six years so why wait.

although it's an uphill battle. he has zero executive experience - he's never been in a role as the decision maker. and i think there's only been one or two people that have been able to make that kind of jump to president.

hillary is the next prez. i've been predicting it for two years now. ?

He's a great speaker, which is important, but his address is the only reason why he's so well known now. He has to do more stuff before even thinking of running for president. He would have a better chance than Hillary, though. ;)

So far, it looks like the Repubilcans will handily win 2008's presidential election, even if the lesser races aren't looking so good now.

I like Obama and I would probably vote for him over Hillary or any other Dem.  Most importantly, Oprah has endorsed him and always sings his praises.  That may be enough for him to win.

i'd love to see Rudi run for prez. the Republicans would be smart to choose him, since he's the only one that would have a shot at NY, which if he won would turn it into a landslide victory.

Hillary has the $$, the smarts, the skill, and the Bill.
 
Poll: 'Rodham' affects Hillary's chances

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 (UPI) -- If the presidential election were held today, U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has an edge over Sen. John McCain; Hillary Clinton does not, a poll showed.

If Clinton's opponent were former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the results would be nearly opposite, a poll of possible 2008 presidential candidates conducted for CNN said Friday.

When asked if they preferred Hillary Rodham Clinton to McCain, respondents said they favored the New York senator 51 percent to 44 percent over Republican McCain, CNN said. Drop the "Rodham," Clinton's and advantage dropped to 48 percent to 47 percent over the Arizona senator.

Deleting "Rodham" in a potential match-up with Giuliani showed respondents favoring the former first lady 50 percent to 46 percent, CNN said. Including her maiden name narrowed the lead, 48 percent to 47 percent.

The margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percent.

The results, while interesting, are basically insignificant for two reasons, CNN said. First, the election is two years away and no poll can accurately predict an outcome so far in advance. Second, Clinton always was listed on the ballot using her maiden name and she shows no indication of changing that.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061021-063232-4793r

Really interesting polls.  thanks for posting that.  rudi vs. hillary for NY state in 2008 would be a legendary battle.  really tough to say who would win.  as hillary is loved/hated in the nation, rudy is has A LOT of haters in NYC too. but i think most people (myself included) think hes the man.  he'd take NYC, but not sure how the rest of the state feels about him.

Where have you heard this?  Just curious.  Most of the polls/news has been focused on the mid-terms which seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of the dems.  i haven't heard much about 08.

Barack Obama =A +.

I hope everybody is ready to vote this November. I am voting early.

I don't know a whole lot about him.  I don't think he was ever really challenged in his Senate race.  He was way behind, but then surged once he issues of his opponent came out.  I am surrpised you like him SLC?  He seems to be far to the right of you.

I think it would be a major mistake for him to run on a ticket with Gore or Kerry.  I don't think he will need the VP position to have a shot at President.  In fact, losing an election as a VP candidate for one of those two may sink his ship.

The common misconception is that I am "far left". Those who wish to attack me, label me as so. Those who actually read what I say, and have said for years, would see otherwise.

So I take it "a little left of Chomsky" is sarcasm then?  ;D

Didn't that fat ass Ted Kennedy at a National Press Club question and answer session receive a question about Obama and actually called him "Osama Obama" or "Obama bin Laden"? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Can't remember forsure but it had something close in relation to do with Osama Bin Laden. :hihi:

That is true.  That is a hilarious quote.

I can only make a judgment from what I read, and yes I have read plenty of your posts.  It will be interesting to see what you write once Bush is out of office because your hatred for Bush is so strong that you tend to turn every political thread into an anti-Bush thread.  But it is more than just Bush. 

Certainly, your comments on religion and your support the goons that support the "truth" behind September 11 do not help either.  Nor does your assertion that Al Jazeera is one of the most credible sources for news.  There are lots of issues that can say I would characterize your posts as strongly left.  Instead of listing everything, what are you not strongly left on?  I don't remember you ever stating one position in any thread that can be considered anything other than left.  Oh wait, I will give you credit for one.  Your position on eminent domain, at least as I read it to be in the Kelo thread, is a relatively conservative position.

I am curious though, what issues would you say are towards the middle of the road or even right of center on?

I too would be interested in this.

And this thread is starting the downhill ride...

Seriously, Berkeley, Randall...you guys are amazing.  Not even a page strong and you're calling out SLC and taking little jabs here and there about Dems.  What a joke.

Anybody who knows me, knows I'm sarcastic.

Ask Kujo.........when I filed restraining orders on him, he thought it was hilarious.

See, this is my point.

Instead of actually considering what I write about his failed policies (and they have failed), you insist that I simply "hate Bush."

I have criticized Clinton for his bombing campaigns which essentially amounted to mass scale genocide in Sudan. For that I was simply told that I hated my country. Once I attack Bush and his fake war on terror, then I am told I hate Bush.

Pretty easy way not to deal with facts.



Indeed.

I would answer, but already have 1000 times. Yet I still get the same false claims about my "views" the next day. So why bother? Want info? Actually read what I have written for a change.

Actually, there simply isn't much about Obama to talk about.? None of you guys care to discuss the things that I brought up.  SLC said that he doesn't consider himself far-left.? I am curious to find out what issues.? I hardly call that a jab.? If you do, then you need to grow some thicker skin.? I certainly wouldn't be offended by the question.

I do consider what you write.  However, considering I have never seen you write one positive thing about the guy and you blame him for many things that are beyond his control, I would hardly say that you are fair in your criticism.

I don't remember those posts.  Nonetheless, while that may show you are fair-minded, it doesn't show that you aren't left-wing.



As you would certainly say, nice cop-out.

See, it always comes back to me, no matter what.

You guys all have a crush on me don't you?

It has nothing to do with a crush.  You've posted some of the most extreme left wing rhetoric in existance, yet made a claim that you are a moderate.  When asked what issues you fall center or right of center to balance out your expressed leftist views, you reply with "already posted it."  Remember when you asked a conservative member to acknowledge those three points on Foley and the GOP?  I obliged, so now I'm asking you.  Please cite 3 issues for which you are right of center on to balance your leftist views.  I'll go ahead and post one, since Berley mentioned it and I too recall the thread (I think you tried to blame conservatives for stealing people's homes.)  If you're going to argue that defining center and moderate is impossible, don't even bother replying.  You know full well what is considered to be a moderate in contemporary America.

1.) Eminent Domain
2.)
3.)

You wouldn't have a problem with that would you SLC?  Afterall, homosexuality is a natural thing and you would never use it to demonize or discredit someone  would you?  That would kind of make you a hypocrite.

Of course not.

But if you are going to bother me this much, at least take me out to lunch or something................ :-*

I asked to meet up in New York, but you blew me off.  Don't say things you don't mean. :love:

Um, then why post in the thread?

If you want to know what SLC thinks about those issues you brought up, PM him, or start a new thread.  Maybe YOU don't have much to talk about when it comes to Obama, but others might....

You couldn't afford me...............

stop being so sensitive. read the posts. no one took any jabs or even called SLC "far left". he accused people of saying that.

berkeleys' post was totally on topic. but i'll make it clearer....

SLCPUNK - you rate Obama A+. why? what do you like about him? are there specific ideas or policies that he supports that you agree with?

i think it's clear that most of us on here do not know much about him. yet some are big fans of this guy. i'd love to hear why.

it has nothing to do with being sensitive dude...its not like i'm crying over here over a post on a GNR board hahah.  its just funny how the same names keep popping up turning threads political or changing the topic - its like you're trying to catch SLC in a big lie or something ridiculous.  he says he likes obama and the same 3-4 guys start questioning him on it  ::)  but hes a big boy, I think he can defend himself.   I think i'll just sit back and watch this one as i'm sure someone will be called a fucking something and then a stooge and then it'll get locked  : ok:  keep up the good work brah

 ::)

Sorry to offend you guys.  Just trying to start a discussion.  I will say that it is kind of funny to hear you guys talk about staying on topic when every thread gets turned into an anti-bush/Iraq war thread.  If you want to cut the discussion, so be it.  You guys seem absolutely disinterested in anything anyone other than those leaning left are saying about Obama.

check every political on these boards and look to see who started with the insults. i think you'll be surprised.  :hihi:

not that i want to start a pointless argument now, since it seems the mods are allowing some political discussions again, and people are handling them fairly well. and with the elections coming up, it's an interesting time.

but PUNK rated the person this thread is named after an A+. and he was asked why (he still hasn't answered). that is totally on topic.

personally, i like the Terrorism Insurance Bill be sponsored.

also liked the Immigration Bill that he worked on. i believe he worked closely with McCain, and Bush signed in it May.

but i don't know much about him besides that. anyone know where he stands on iraq? afghanistan?

I just heard about Barack Obama a week ago, and for a minute there I thought it was awesome we had a senator named Black Mamba in our government.

No misconceptions here.  I've read your posts here going on 5 years now and you're just about as far left as they come.

I've been reading Punk's posts since 2003 and my opinion he is not far left.  More like he sees the big picture.

I work around politicians.  Have for 10 years now.  The majority, and I mean 9 out of 10, are self serving.

If Obama ran, I would actually begin voting again.

He is a balanced human being who's concern is for the greater good of all of humanity......not himself.

You say that because you're coming from the left as well.? Big picture, my ass.? See, that's the problem.? Everyone claims that they hold the middle ground and are the ones who really see things clearly.? I can admit that I come from the right.? While his posts betray his liberal leanings almost on a daily basis, SLC avoids actually admitting he's on the left.? Maybe he thinks it will detract from his credibility.? After all, he's got people who think he sees the big picture.


No kidding.


We'll have to see....

You like to debate huh mainline??  I said "my opinion".  Pay attention to the words.

You've judged me as far left on, what (?), 4 sentences??

When I say big picture, I mean "outside of the box".  Do you know what I mean when I say that?

You remind me of somebody who has posted here in the past under many different names.  He knew everything about everything as you seem to think you do.  BBBR, mahan, The Joker were a few of his names.

I don't look at Bush as just being the "village idoit" that he is......I see his role as president of this country as "meant to be" and necessary for what the "higher" good is out to accomplish as a whole.

Like, outside of this reality.  Opportunities to redirect the energies behind all these wars that are reincarnations of past "mistakes" made by civilizations thousands of years ago.

But then again I am open to the possibility that those "mistakes" were meant to be.

And yes, very profound of you to end with "we'll have to wait and see......"  How about an "only time will tell".  Isn't that the case with all things in our future?

Obama has a "Buddha" like aura about him.  The first time I saw him, I felt that he had a very important part to play in this world in the future.  "Politicians" like him can help redirect this world to one where parents begin to make their children their primary concern.  It is the only way we can begin to right the wrongs of the world.  To start at the beginning and the children of the world are "our beginning".

?

Not really.? Gave that up a long time ago.? I only come around here once in a while nowadays.


That was all it took.? You said you've been reading SLCPUNK's posts since 2003.? It doesn't take three days to figure out where he's coming from, let alone three years.? Yet it was your "opinion" that he isn't on the far left.? To think as much is a good indicator of where you stand yourself.?


I think so.? It's the type of thinking that fuels dozens of conspiracy theories and hundreds of blogs by thousands of people who think they can change the world through internet message boards.


Hmmmm....now what would make you say that?? Me thinks someone has been whispering in your ear.? Tell them "hi" for me.


That's all fine and good, but if you are counting on politicians (Obama or whoever) to be the saviors of the world, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Im curious to know what the threads conservatives like about Obama?  What makes him so moderate?

i'm not a conservative, i just play one on these boards.

but i already listed a few things. he's worked closely with mccain on a number of bills that were eventually signed by bush. it appears he tries hard to be a unifier. he respects religion and people's faith and isn't afraid to say it.

i'm still waiting for anyone on the left to say why they like this guy so much. he's been rated A+ by some, but people refuse to say why.

anyone? anyone?

Like I have said, I don't know a lot about him, and I don't believe he has had to express his viewpoint on a lot of controversial issues.  I did see his interview on Meet the Press last weekend - which is never a softball interview - and I actually liked him.  I thought he was very articulate in that interview.  I also think that he isn't a left-wing bombthrower that will oppose Bush just to oppose Bush.  Certainly, his politics are to the left, but he comes off as someone that actually thinks about the issues and that stands on principles.  For example, Russert asked him about his vote against John Roberts.  Obama explained that he was against John Roberts, but was also against a filibuster because Roberts was well-qualified.  Even though I strongly disagree with his vote against Roberts, the explanation that he gave leads me to believe that he has principles and won't oppose the President at all costs.  I think he has an understanding of history and how the process has worked - perhaps just in this particular area since he was a Con law professor - and doesn't just play the ideology game.

You might feel similarly about Russ Feingold then.


Many Democrats, even those perceived as liberals by some of you, have worked with Republicans.  And theyve done nothing but be respectful of religion in public.  So the key difference seems to be simple likability, which certainly speaks to his skill as a politician.  Its the reason I think he would make a good candidate for president - nobody seems to dislike him beyond party allegience. 


Well, he votes with the Democratic position on almost every key vote (Supreme Court nominees, the Military Commissions Act, CAFTA, budget cuts, Bush tax cuts, path to citizenship, the marriage amendment, the flag-burning amendment, stem cell research, estate tax, the bankruptcy bill, and John Bolton, to name a few).  A possible misstep was the Oman Trade Agreement.  Then theres his political skill that even conservatives admire and seem to like. 

actually, obama has criticized the Dems for their stance on religion.

based on this thread, it appears obama stays away from the tough issues. no mention of the war on terror, iraq, afghanistan or social security.

anyone know where he stands on these issues? or what ideas he has to save social security?

That's your problem. You don't look past the end of your nose, then attack what you don't know..............

Go read.

You are surfing the "internets" on the computer right now. On the "internets" is an amazing tool named "google", type his name in and see what pops up.

Yes, one of his shortcomings is his lame use of Democratic strawmen (particularly on religion) for centrist posturing that appeals to conservatives such as yourself. 

By the way, whats Democrats "stance" on religion?


Or you just stay away from researching them.  ;)

He rejects Bushs privatization plans.  He supports Byron Dorgans initiative to strengthen oversight of war contracts.  Those are some broad topics...Hes against terrorists and doesnt like whats happening in Iraq or Afghanistan.  You might want to add some nuance to the issues for more details.

Cant say Ive looked deep into what Obama's stance is on the issues. I tend to lean to the right on some things, but am not binded by any particular party.

But why not run? Hes pretty popular and not been in Washington long enough to be corrupted.

i wish you were as funny as you think you are. at least then your posts would be interesting.

usually people post links and provide info in these threads, and i learn alot that way in a short amount of time. i like having you lefties do my research for me. that's working smarter, not harder.

but thanks for the heads up on google. i'll give it a try sometime.  : ok:

booker - he's against bush's policies. no shit. i'm assuming you recognize that as left-wing "posturing"?  :hihi:

i don't know the democrats stance on religion, but there is a percieved lack of respect towards people's religious views. and obama has a problem with that. right or wrong he thinks they need to address it. unless like you said, he is lying just to get votes.
 
he's against terrorists? wow. he's got my vote!  :rofl:

what is he FOR?

You asked where he stood on social security, I answered (in part at least).  Posturing?  Thats doubtful since hes a Democrat (and not a nominal one like Ben Nelson) so he subscibes to most Democratic positions; no posturing is necessary. 


I suspected this, oddly enough.


Based on what? 

Youre right, that perception does exist, but its a fallacy and is perpetuated by dim or dishonest conservatives.  In fact, the genuine lack of respect for religion comes from the right.


Hes either lying or hes wrong.  Then again, maybe my memory of the rhetoric in question is fuzzy.


I appreciate the behind-the-scenes look at a single Bush vote, but I think you missed the point.  You asked about ridiculously vague issue and got an appropriate answer.  If you ask about something more specific, you can either 1) look it up yourself or 2) have me look it up for you, which I dont really mind since I like discussing this stuff.  But asking "where does he stand on the war on terror" is pretty broad.


Preventing terrorism.   : ok:

Just read the right stuff. 

Far left or far right......they are essentially the same IMO.  Both unwilling to view things from the other side.  I don't see any growth in either.  Only battles.  Both sides would do well to compromise.

I was watching Oprah today.  Bill O' Reilly was on there.  He made sense.  Those in teh audience who spoke up opposing his views made sense.  None of us really know what the right answers.  I say the answer is somewhere in the middle of opposite views.  I say it will take a combined effort from us all to solve all major problems.

For those interested:

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


Reviewing Obama's career in the Illinois State Senate, commentators noted his ability to work effectively with both Democrats and Republicans, and to build coalitions.[15][16] In his subsequent campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose officials cited his "longtime support of gun control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises", this despite his support for some bills that the police union had opposed.[17]


[edit] Keynote address
See also: 2004 Democratic National Convention
Midway through his campaign for U.S. Senator, Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts.[18]

After describing his maternal grandfather's experiences as a World War II veteran and a beneficiary of the New Deal's FHA and GI Bill programs, Obama said:

No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

Questioning the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War, Obama spoke of an enlisted Marine, Corporal Seamus Ahern from East Moline, Illinois, asking, "Are we serving Seamus as well as he was serving us?" He continued:

When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

Finally he spoke for national unity:

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

hey booker - instead of bringing a cocky, smarter than you attitude, why don't you post something of substance. please enlighten me on the Dems stance on religion.

and politics is all about perception. that's all that matters. and if one of your top dogs believes there's a problem, there is.

war on terror is broad, but did he support the war in afghanistan? iraq? does he support the patriot act? these are the most critical issues and no one has said much about them.

but at least you stepped to the plate to say why you like this guy and what you know about him. i appreciate that.  : ok:

it's more than i can say for the lefties in these threads who claim to like this guy.  :hihi: 

We disagree, because I think I have posted something of substance and illuminated some of you as to where Obama stands on some issues.  Conversely, I think youve taken a willfully ignorant, not-smart-enough attitude by alluding to some imaginary Democratic position on religion that you cant explain.  I dont feel obligated at all to enlighten you on the Democrats position on religion because unlike you, I never asserted they had one.  I only stated that nearly every Democrat I know of has been respectful of religion.  Youre welcome to prove otherwise, but considering your inability to explain their "position," I doubt that you will.


 ???

It is?  Maybe to you it is, but I think politics is a bit more meaningful than that. 


That problem is with the perception some people have, not any Democratic position on religion.  And as Ive said, that perception is a fallacy perpetuated by the opposition and sometimes opportunistic Democrats eager to curry favor among "centrists" or conservatives.  Maybe youve read something Obama has said or written that details this so-called Democratic stance on religion - Id like to see it. 


He was elected in 2004, 3 years after the Afghanistan vote and 2 years after the Iraq one.  However its safe to assume he supported the war in Afghanistan and opposed invading Iraq.  He voted to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. 

I would be glad to discuss why I like him to somebody who wasn't so lazy.

1. Insult the opposition.

2. Cop out.

Par for the course.  :rofl:

booker - you said "oddly i suspected this" when i admitted i didn't know something. to me that's cocky.

here is a portion of Obama's speech where he criticized and gave advice to fellow Dems regarding religion...

"Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that ? regardless of our personal beliefs ? constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word ?Christian? describes one?s political opponents, not people of faith.

Such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when the opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people, and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

We first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people believe in angels than do those who believe in evolution."

Yes, there are certainly some liberals who feel that way.  Does that mean ALL democrats or liberals do?  Please, thats just insulting.  And Obama's remarks are dead on if you ask me - but he is hardly addressing the Democratic "position on religion".  THERE ISN'T ONE!!!  Nor should there be.  Religion has no place in politics.  Your faith and your principles can, sure, they are welcome infact (except for when some politicians who claim to be super religious are corrupt and dirty at the core, but thats another thread...). 

The key words you should have highlighted are "SOME LIBERALS"....b/c its certainly not all of them.

Its not just "something," its something you essentially criticized Democrats for before admitting you didnt know.  I knew that when I asked you about it.  Perhaps its cocky, but your baseless implications about a vague, made-up Democratic agenda on religion is lazy at best and dishonest at worst. 

As for that Obama quote, it seems to me that hes speaking about some Democrats use of religious rhetoric (particluarly in electioneering), not their stance on religion.  I refer to my earlier post: its self-serving pandering, and its wrong.

LOL, cop out of what?

Explaining why I like somebody? I already told you: you are lazy (don't read), and honestly not that smart. So why would I waste my time explaining why I like this guy? It your MO, you refuse to look anything up and then attack what you think may be, or attack silence. Very Jr. High at best. Then you come back and call me "chicken" if I don't respond.

Get a life.

And you're just brilliant. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You think you are soooooo superior.  What is your education level?

Cop out.

I hate the idea of appealing to authority for an argument, but there's something to be said about people with no higher education buying into alot of this conspiracy bullshit.  What makes matters worse is that these conspiracy wackos find people in academia to support these beleifs, but 9 times out  of 10, these so called experts have no experience in the field they're sponsoring, let alone tenure at an accredited university.  Alot of times you have to goto college to be dumb enough to believe in shit like Peta or other extreme views on Animal rights.  So it's a double edge sword.  But the one thing I've taken from my degree is to objectively analyze positions.  I don't toe any party line, but others here are staunch supporters of their respective parties and ideologies no matter how much they contradict themselves.

Or have a general sense of decency and compassion...

I'm all about compassion.  I love my dog more than anything else in this world.  You couldn't pay me an amount of money to intentionally harm him.  That being said, I said "extremist" views such as Peta, where they argue against any and all compainon pets.  I don't support animal cruelty, but let's define what cruelty actually means rather than throwing the word around.  Cruelty means taking pleasure from the intentional infliction of pain or suffering onto a sentient creature.  It doesn't mean working in a slaughter house or keeping wildlife numbers at bay by hunting.   Humans eat meat and since it's inefficient and not feasible for everyone to harvest their own food, we have created certain game (yes I say create because you can't tell me where chickens or cows roam freely in nature) to quickly process and meet the need for meat.  I'm not condoning clubbing seals for fancy fur coats or beating animals in laboratories.  Those are totally different issues, but people try to blend the two as one.

Thats not what it means.  It simply means causing pain or suffering, especially deliberately and/or without pity. 

Although you essentially re-worded my own definition, look it up.? ?It clearly defines it as "enjoying the pain or distress of others."? With your definition, a doctor can be defined as cruel simply because the surgery he performs is painful.? It's more complex than that.? To be cruel you have to want to inflict pain and suffering.? On the contrary, most slaughterhouse are run to minimalize as much pain and discomfort as realistically possible.?

Let's say we enacted laws that only permitted range roaming cattle and chickens.? The cost of maintaining these ranches would be much more costly than "animal factories" which in turn would increase teh cost of the product.? Free roaming cattle meats already exist, and they're more exspensive.? So let's do a utility chart here.? The possible discomfort of some cattle by living in an animal factory or the starving or hunger of millions of people who can't afford the new cost of meat?? You're not going to find too many poor people champion against factory farms.?

I think this belongs in the PETA thread - unless Obama has a view on PETA? 

you make a post like this and then try to criticize someone's intelligence?  :rofl:

i love these threads.  :hihi:

and just a heads up, i don't think there's anything online that describes WHY you support obama. yes, i could spend hours researching obama's ideals, but that tells me nothing as to why you rate him A+.

but eveyone on here knew you wouldn't explain yourself.  :rofl:

so we can drop this.

Your actions speak louder than anything else.

You refuse to read about anything, yet ask questions and create your own answers. You have done this plenty of times in the past.

If I chose not to answer your questions you attack silence.

Seems pretty dumb to me.

I don't feel like taking part in it.

what are you talking about??

please point out where I made "BASELESS IMPLICATIONS", and/or "ESSENTIALLY CRITICIZED" the dems on something i don't know (i.e. religion).

cause if you're gonna call me "lazy" and "dishonest" you should at least have the decency to point out why.

You lauded Obama because he has respect for religion.  I pointed out to you that nearly every Democrat does and you countered that Obama criticized Democrats stance on religion.  You effectively created a contrast between Obama (who respects religion) and other Democrats (who ostensibly dont) as well as a Democratic position on religion with which Obama disagreed.  You couldnt explain what that stance was.  So by bringing up that stance that you couldnt explain, you were either lazy (disinterested in thinking about what that stance was before posting about it) or dishonest (knowing you didnt know of any Democratic stance and asserting one exists anyway).

nice try, bro.  :rofl:

you're a fraud. keep trying to put words in my mouth. just be a man and admit you made a mistake.

read this clearly....i did not criticize the dems for something i didn't know. i didn't criticize them PERIOD. end of story.

you got cocky and insulted someone you were having a civilized discussion with - unfairly, as i've pointed out. i shouldn't be surprised coming from the left, but i thought you were better than that.

par for the course.   :hihi: