Turn on thread page Beta

Hillary Clinton 2008 !!! watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    The problem is that we have a candidate that has no experience and no real record or qualifications to judge him by. So when you have no experience, no history, you need to look and see what else there is out there to judge him by. So people are looking at the company he keeps. And all I see are an anti-american wife, a nutjob racist pastor, friendships with some of the most dangerous domestic terrorists the US has ever seen, and a black nationalist church with ties to the world's most notorious anti-semite. Look a little closer and we see more tires to Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. His Director of Constituent Services and his treasurer of his senate campaign are NOI members. People like Shakir Muhammad held important roles in the Obama state senate campaign. Obama sees nothing wrong with this?

    You are basically arguing that we should ignore his lack of experience, ignore what little record he has, and just take his words at face value? Do the Brits have the expression "talk is cheap"? I'm more interested in Obama's actions, the company he keeps, and the voting record he has.
    :clap2:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    The problem is that we have a candidate that has no experience and no real record or qualifications to judge him by. So when you have no experience, no history, you need to look and see what else there is out there to judge him by. So people are looking at the company he keeps. And all I see are an anti-american wife, a nutjob racist pastor, friendships with some of the most dangerous domestic terrorists the US has ever seen, and a black nationalist church with ties to the world's most notorious anti-semite. Look a little closer and we see more tires to Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. His Director of Constituent Services and his treasurer of his senate campaign are NOI members. People like Shakir Muhammad held important roles in the Obama state senate campaign. Obama sees nothing wrong with this?

    You are basically arguing that we should ignore his lack of experience, ignore what little record he has, and just take his words at face value? Do the Brits have the expression "talk is cheap"? I'm more interested in Obama's actions, the company he keeps, and the voting record he has.
    Win.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is that we have a candidate that has no experience and no real record or qualifications to judge him by. So when you have no experience, no history, you need to look and see what else there is out there to judge him by. So people are looking at the company he keeps. And all I see are an anti-american wife, a nutjob racist pastor, friendships with some of the most dangerous domestic terrorists the US has ever seen, and a black nationalist church with ties to the world's most notorious anti-semite. Look a little closer and we see more tires to Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. His Director of Constituent Services and his treasurer of his senate campaign are NOI members. People like Shakir Muhammad held important roles in the Obama state senate campaign. Obama sees nothing wrong with this?
    You're just being ridiculous by bringing his wife into it - and she's only 'anti-american' from your own peculiarly warped perspective. The extreme views of some of the people he associate with may reflect badly on his judgement, but they say nothing about his own political leanings. Working as a community organiser would make it quite likely for him to develop personal ties to these people.
    What utter nonsense. Obama was the most left-wing Senator last year, and has refused to work with the Republicans on anything other than feel-good issues. The guy doesn't have a bi-partisan bone in his body. He's consistently voted with the left wing of the Democratic party during his time in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate. How you can believe his bipartisan BS despite him having a blatantly opposite record is beyond me.
    This is exactly why he is an infinitely better candidate than Clinton.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You know, depsite all the controversy that seems to surround Hillary and her tactics, i'm actually glad she's in the race. Whether she gets the nominee spot or not, the most liberal candidate is likely to win the general. Obama if it's a Obama-McCain match up, and McCain if its a McCain-Clinton matchup. Obama might be the most liberal in the senate, but McCain is the most liberal in the GOP. Have no doubt, his new found conservatism won't last...if you think that in the space of under a year, a large swathe of a 71 year old mans principles have fundamentally changed, you're living in a dreamworld than Hillary is if she actually thinks she can still win.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    He specifically chose this pastor. He's been using him as an advisor for decades (he was on his religion council before this story leaked). And he has been with him all this time despite knowing what this many really stands for. The pastor isn't even a real Christian; he's just a black nationalist who uses Christianity as a vehicle to get more converts to his black nationalism religion. Obama must have known that in the decades they've been together. The guy never hid his views. It doesn't help that Obama flip-flopped on the issue of whether he personally attended some of the hateful sermons in question. It also doesn't help that Obama is well-known in terrorist circles in Chicago. Whether he agrees with them or not, it shows incredibly bad judgment on his part to be around people like that.
    More win.

    I wouldn't let a pastor marry me and my future wife, and baptize our children if "I strongly disagree with his opinions". I would get the **** out of that church as soon as possible. If Obama would have disagreed 100% he would
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cucumber sandwich)
    If I was american, I think I'd rather vote for McCain if Obama got the nomination. I'd rather have a soul less ******* who's got brains than another retarded president.

    I'd be interested to know what gives you the impression that McCain has more intelligence than Obama, other than the fact that he is old and white and boring.

    I gather he shows disgraceful ignorance on the middle-east etc.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...a_n_92349.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiio)
    I'd be interested to know what gives you the impression that McCain has more intelligence than Obama, other than the fact that he is old and white and boring.

    I gather he shows disgraceful ignorance on the middle-east etc.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...a_n_92349.html
    Wow, the guy who said that was crazy. Obama was head of the Harvard Law Review and is a Senior Lecturer on Law at Illinois university...McCain was a grunt who didn't go to university.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Crazy is threatening to invade Pakistan.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FoeGeddaBowDeet)
    Wow, the guy who said that was crazy. Obama was head of the Harvard Law Review and is a Senior Lecturer on Law at Illinois university...McCain was a grunt who didn't go to university.
    Oh, so Obama must be a genius and McCain must be as thick as ****.:rolleyes:

    What a ****in idiotic post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    Crazy is threatening to invade Pakistan.
    Which he didn't do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    Crazy is threatening to invade Pakistan.
    Like Bush did?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jerry Meandering)
    Oh, so Obama must be a genius and McCain must be as thick as ****.:rolleyes:

    What a ****in idiotic post.
    Seeing as the original charge was that Obama would be 'another retarded president' whereas McCain is a 'soul-less ******* with brains', I think it was extremely effective in countering that point.

    McCain has no record to prove his intelligence, Obama has an outstanding one. Seeing as you could literally be borderline retarded and acheive what McCain has(not throughout his career, but in the areas I described) yet could be a veritible genius and not acheive what Obama did, it's a good comparison.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    Crazy is threatening to invade Pakistan.
    Again you have not understood what he said.

    He stated, if there is strong and sound intelligence, not dodgy evidence, that there are Al-Queda suspects in apartments in Pakistan, he would strike them. No different to Bush Policy.

    Note: Prior to this he did state, he wants to build ties with the Pakistani leaders and army so they wouldn't need to strike. Not like Bush and McCain who have made their intentions clear that they should invade and sit tight. That is crazy.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Genius, there are terrorists in Pakistan. It's a fact. Even the Pakistanis admit to it. If we were to use Obama's "test", then we'd be bombing Pakistan right now.
    Therefore Obama has stated he want to form new links and ties with the Pakistani's to help rid of terrorists which are a threat to the USA.

    It's not only establishing the fact that terrorists are in Pakistan, but its where they are and where they operate which in most cases would be up in the mountains.

    Working and forming close ties with countries = success

    Invading and bombing countries = failure

    Moreover, the issue I think was on Iraq as well, as they are fairly active there.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And the US doesn't already have a close relationship with Pakistan? Is that why you and others call Musharraf a US pawn? :rolleyes: And the terrorists aren't just hiding in the mountains. They're hiding in border cities as well. The US and Pakistan both agree on this point. Pakistan just refuses to grant the US permission to take them out. Yet you'd apparently have no problem with Obama bombing Pakistan over this. :rolleyes: Your hypocrisy is simply astounding.
    They haven't no. That's what Obama is trying to get to. Using guided missile to take out terrorists, I have no problem, provided to their is evidence which proves beyond doubt that the people inside are indeed terrorists. Moreover, using proper guided missiles, not cluster bombs, which turns US and Israel on. Talk and get somewhere, which allows you to raid and arrest and subsequently trial. Striking is only a last resort.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And the US doesn't already have a close relationship with Pakistan? Is that why you and others call Musharraf a US pawn? :rolleyes: And the terrorists aren't just hiding in the mountains. They're hiding in border cities as well. The US and Pakistan both agree on this point. Pakistan just refuses to grant the US permission to take them out. Yet you'd apparently have no problem with Obama bombing Pakistan over this. :rolleyes: Your hypocrisy is simply astounding.
    That is exactly the point, Obama said in these instances, where there are high profiles targets, not just your average AK weilding Jihadi, he would take them out independently if Musharraf doesn't co-operate. Months after he suggested it, Bush did it. Obviously i'm not suggesting Bush is taking his cues from Obama, but it's pretty weak for conservatives to try and say 'Obama wants to start a war with Pakistan!' when he's advocating a policy already successfully carried out by a conservative administration.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidjones90)
    They haven't no. That's what Obama is trying to get to. Using guided missile to take out terrorists, I have no problem, provided to their is evidence which proves beyond doubt that the people inside are indeed terrorists. Moreover, using proper guided missiles, not cluster bombs, which turns US and Israel on. Talk and get somewhere, which allows you to raid and arrest and subsequently trial. Striking is only a last resort.
    Good luck meeting this standard. I'd have better luck trying to win the lottery three times in a row.

    edit: By this I mean that the number of variables involved are astounding. The lag between when information is gathered and when it can be acted on makes it such that there will always be some room for doubt. It doesn't matter if it's the US doing the bombing or England or China or Russia. Variables are inescapable.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D-Day)
    Good luck meeting this standard. I'd have better luck trying to win the lottery three times in a row.

    edit: By this I mean that the number of variables involved are astounding. The lag between when information is gathered and when it can be acted on makes it such that there will always be some room for doubt. It doesn't matter if it's the US doing the bombing or England or China or Russia. Variables are inescapable.
    I have to agree with you on this matter, thats why it's crucial to work very closely with Pakistan to conduct raids at potential targets.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cucumber sandwich)
    More win.

    I wouldn't let a pastor marry me and my future wife, and baptize our children if "I strongly disagree with his opinions". I would get the **** out of that church as soon as possible. If Obama would have disagreed 100% he would
    He finally did what was necessary for him to have any chance of surviving politically and threw his lunatic pastor under the bus after defending him all this time and attending his church for 20 years. The odd thing was that pastor Wright didn't say anything different this past week that hadn't said before in all of the youtube clips we've been listening too all this time.

    I saw Hillary Clinton on Bill O'Reilly's show on fox news and thought she did well in a pretty hostile environment. I used to think she was worse than Obama, but now that I know Obama's inner circle is comprised of racists, America-haters, conspiracy kooks or terrorists, I'm starting to think that maybe Obama is worse than Hillary. Here are is the interview for anyone who is interested:

    part one
    part two
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    She did awsome. She answered every question brilliantly and lightning fast even under extreme pressure from that idiot O'Reilly. Obama would have stuttered like a ****** if he would have been in the same situation, just as he did when under 10% of the pressure on that Fox News interview the other week
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.