The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[Lackey]

Bill Clinton was probably the most honest President in history. And I'm being 100% serious when I say that.

that just proof of how stupid he was

he was honest by accident

[CK1]

I was being facetious, as was CK1 I suspect. How about if we look at it like this; Obama has done no more damage to his country than any of these people.
No I wasn't, I really don't know anything about him. I dont know who I'm going to vote for and I wanted to know what he did for this country.

[SuBe]

you dislike him?
It's not that I dislike him. He hasn't done a thing for this nation. His lack of exprience doen't warrent him the White House.

[SuBe]

No I wasn't, I really don't know anything about him. I dont know who I'm going to vote for and I wanted to know what he did for this country.
Do yourself a Favor and Vote for someone that is going to protect you from Islamic Jihad and reduce taxes.

[raybia]

It's not that I dislike him. He hasn't done a thing for this nation. His lack of exprience doen't warrent him the White House.

Not yet. What is Hilary's experience?. If being a first lady qualifies her then Mrs Bush should run for President.

[Mr Sparkle]

It's not that I dislike him. He hasn't done a thing for this nation. His lack of exprience doen't warrent him the White House.

experience means nothing, or else everyone would've voted Kerry in 2004

[Mr Sparkle]

Do yourself a Favor and Vote for someone that is going to protect you from Islamic Jihad and reduce taxes.

:whatever: yeah, they might invade America, that's a feasible scenario.

[raybia]

Do yourself a Favor and Vote for someone that is going to protect you from Islamic Jihad and reduce taxes.

Oh you mean vote for someone who will reform our foreign policy and stop exploiting third world countries and their natural and human resources.

[SuBe]

Not yet. What is Hilary's experience?. If being a first lady qualifies her then Mrs Bush should run for President.
Being First Lady is not experience. It doesn't show how someone will balance the NB, Handle a War, Protect us from the Enemy, ect.
experience means nothing, or else everyone would've voted Kerry in 2004
You defy logic my friend. Less 4 Million people, 1/2 the people in this country voted for Kerry. Bush had 4 years prior to that, and 8 Years Governer of Texas. They Bush administration hasn't allowed a 2nd 9/11 from happening. Or did you miss that? We've had no Embassy Bombings, no USS Coles, nothing.
:whatever: yeah, they might invade America, that's a feasible scenario.
They are already planning a 2nd 9/11. Did you not hear about JFK International? Do you not pay attention to what is going on in the news? What about Fort Dix? They want to hurt us, Kill us, demoralize us, until we become an Islamic State. That is their goal, and igoring it will not make it go away.

[Steve Rogers]

They are already planning a 2nd 9/11. Did you not hear about JFK International? Do you not pay attention to what is going on in the news? What about Fort Dix? They want to hurt us, Kill us, demoralize us, until we become an Islamic State. That is their goal, and igoring it will not make it go away.You believe all of that?

[SuBe]

You believe all of that?
I believe that Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. We can't let that happen to us again. Where were you on 9/11? I know exactly the place I was. I don't want to be there again.

[raybia]

They are already planning a 2nd 9/11. Did you not hear about JFK International? Do you not pay attention to what is going on in the news? What about Fort Dix? They want to hurt us, Kill us, demoralize us, until we become an Islamic State. That is their goal, and igoring it will not make it go away.

CREDIBILITY METER 3...2...1...ZERO


Thanks for playing! :whatever:

[Mr Sparkle]

You defy logic my friend. Less 4 Million people, 1/2 the people in this country voted for Kerry. Bush had 4 years prior to that, and 8 Years Governer of Texas. They Bush administration hasn't allowed a 2nd 9/11 from happening. Or did you miss that? We've had no Embassy Bombings, no USS Coles, nothing.

I like how you go on a tangent that had NOTHING to do with the topic but I defy logic?
haha! 9-11 happened DURING Bush's watch.
or did you miss that?

They are already planning a 2nd 9/11. Did you not hear about JFK International? Do you not pay attention to what is going on in the news? What about Fort Dix? They want to hurt us, Kill us, demoralize us, until we become an Islamic State. That is their goal, and igoring it will not make it go away.

really.
you really believe that the US, the most highly armed, and richest country in the world is going to be brought to it's knees by dudes who are still using soviet and black market surplus?
do you honestly believe that they are going to submit the US and turn it into an Islamic state?
you don't....really believe that? do you?:huh:

[SuBe]

CREDIBILITY METER 3...2...1...ZERO


Thanks for playing! :whatever:
Thanks for Stating your case, I still don't see where you are coming from. :huh:

[Steve Rogers]

I believe that Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. We can't let that happen to us again. Where were you on 9/11? I know exactly the place I was. I don't want to be there again.Is terrorism a concern? Of course. Are we in danger of being invaded by Muslim extremists andhaving our country turned into an Islamic state? I'm just going to laugh instead of answering that one.

[Mr Sparkle]

I believe that Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. We can't let that happen to us again. Where were you on 9/11? I know exactly the place I was. I don't want to be there again.

where were you....when the world stopped turning!?

[SuBe]

Is terrorism a concern? Of course. Are we in danger of being invaded by Muslim extremists andhaving our country turned into an Islamic state? I'm just going to laugh instead of answering that one.
This is the Headline:

Muslim group sues critic for $1.35 million
Website calls CAIR terrorist-backer seeking Islamist regime in U.S.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37927

Read it.

[raybia]

Thanks for Stating your case, I still don't see where you are coming from. :huh:

Well I guess we are even. Now you have to take on Mr. Sparkle.

Good luck

[Mr Sparkle]

This is the Headline:

Muslim group sues critic for $1.35 million
Website calls CAIR terrorist-backer seeking Islamist regime in U.S.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37927

Read it.

uh huh? and?

[Steve Rogers]

This is the Headline:

Muslim group sues critic for $1.35 million
Website calls CAIR terrorist-backer seeking Islamist regime in U.S.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37927

Read it.Wow. I don't know how you can call that a credible source, but okay. Yeah, sic him Mr. Sparkle.

[raybia]

This is the Headline:

Muslim group sues critic for $1.35 million
Website calls CAIR terrorist-backer seeking Islamist regime in U.S.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37927

Read it.

Yeah thats horrible that this anti-Islamic bigot website is slandering CAIR. I hope justice prevails and they win the lawsuit.

[SuBe]

Wow. I don't know how you can call that a credible source, but okay. Yeah, sic him Mr. Sparkle.
It's just as credible as Lou Dobbs or CNN. I'm Glad to see you guys not worry about any of this. 9/11 didn't change you much. Let's just sit back and watch American Idol and Mtv. Let other people sort it out, we have nothing to worry about. It's funny how none of you are giving me any information. Just, "I can't Believe you believe that!" crap. None of you can even handle this debate. Give me facts to prove me otherwise. Just Try.

[SuBe]

Yeah thats horrible that this anti-Islamic bigot website is slandering CAIR. I hope justice prevails and they win the lawsuit.
Never heard of freedom of speech? Or does it only apply if it's speech you agree with?

[BlackLantern]

I kinda have to agree with SB....these guys actually believe they can subjugate the West and the United States and are willing to sacrifice anyone committed to their cause. I think as a country, we should be a little more concerned with it.....I hate American Idol

[CK1]

Ok, so who should I vote for, because i'm agreeing with Supermanbeyond. I dont want antoher 911. What are the Democrats going to do to protect me?

[Mr Sparkle]

It's just as credible as Lou Dobbs or CNN. I'm Glad to see you guys not worry about any of this. 9/11 didn't change you much. Let's just sit back and watch American Idol and Mtv. Let other people sort it out, we have nothing to worry about. It's funny how none of you are giving me any information. Just, "I can't Believe you believe that!" crap. None of you can even handle this debate. Give me facts to prove me otherwise. Just Try.

no, it's not as credible as Lou Dobbs and that my friend is saying something, since Lou Dobbs is a bigoted freak
:huh: any information?
on what exactly, did you not know that the US is the most heavily armed and richest country in the world?
do you need information on WHY it would be impossible for an Islamic State to take root in the US?
well, I'll give you a simple example so you can sort it out.
what luck do you think the US will have installing a Christian State in the middle east, in particular Iraq.
ok, let the fact that this has been an ongoing struggle for like 6 years and last time I checked Iraq couldn't flaunt the Military power that the US does.
ok, so that means that the largest Military in the world has a hard time submitting people to their will.
gee, let's apply that to the people whose version of a stealth bomber is when the crazy 15 year old they convinced to die for them is "really , really quiet"
what does being a sensible human being who is not buying into these politics of fear have to do with watching Mtv, I freaking watched political shows and networks BEFORE 9-11, I was interested in politics BEFORE 9-11 ( like when Bush Jr. said, no nation building remember that?) so yeah, 9-11 didn't change me much, because It didn't have to.
I read History before, and I know that using fear of a foreign enemy is the best way to distract the people of the enemy in their mist, a government that's too concerned with feeding the interests of the rich than their own people, the countrymen they are supposed to SERVE.

and you dare say " give me facts to prove otherwise"? give some facts yourself.

[BlackLantern]

the Democrats are going to wait untill the next controversial video game and try and blame the media and the video game industry for the downfall of americas' youth

[SuBe]

I kinda have to agree with SB....these guys actually believe they can subjugate the West and the United States and are willing to sacrifice anyone committed to their cause. I think as a country, we should be a little more concerned with it.....I hate American Idol
Thank you BL. I Believe we are already in WW3 and so many people are blind to it.

[Mr Sparkle]

Never heard of freedom of speech? Or does it only apply if it's speech you agree with?

LOL, slander is not freedom of speech.
do you believe it should be protected?
do you believe slander should be protected under the law as a form of freedom of speech?

[Steve Rogers]

It's just as credible as Lou Dobbs or CNN. I'm Glad to see you guys not worry about any of this. 9/11 didn't change you much. Let's just sit back and watch American Idol and Mtv. Let other people sort it out, we have nothing to worry about. It's funny how none of you are giving me any information. Just, "I can't Believe you believe that!" crap. None of you can even handle this debate. Give me facts to prove me otherwise. Just Try.You want facts that prove that I don't believe in something? Um okay...I'll give it a shot. First of all, don't believe anything you read on the internet just because you read it on the internet. I could write "sky is red" on my website and that wouldn't make it so. Also, Lou Dobbs? CNN? The media in general can be sketchy at best. Again, just because it's on TV doesn't make it real. Also, it seems like all the time we are told to brace ourselves for this and that. Threat level is orange today. Don't eat Halloween candy. Don't celebrate Christmas. Threat level is blue now. Don't fly. Duct tape your house to save yourself. The terrorists are coming! Now, honestly, has any of this actually been a problem? Did our candy get poisoned? Did the shopping malls blow up at Christmas. Did we duct tape ourselves in and saved ourselves from a gas attack? No. None of that happened. Also, if there were a terrorist threat we'd be hunting them down instead of wasting billions of dollars looking into Iraq's and now Iran's weapons of mass destruction. These aren't terrorists that have weapons of mass destruction, they are governments. That's who we went after. Not terrorists.

How dare you say we weren't changed after 9/11. We all were. But there is a difference between being changed and being blind.

[Mr Sparkle]

I kinda have to agree with SB....these guys actually believe they can subjugate the West and the United States and are willing to sacrifice anyone committed to their cause. I think as a country, we should be a little more concerned with it.....I hate American Idol

the question isn't whether they believe it or not ( and they don't really) the question is whether they can.
they quite obviously can't. and you think you should be more concerned with that, than you have to be concerned about health care and jobs and homes for your countrymen?
uh, no.

[Spider-Bite]

As of last night Obama is ahead in Iowa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :woot: :woot: :woot:

[Mr Sparkle]

After 9/11 CAIR created a "library project" which sold packages of educational books and tapes about Islam (over $300 worth per library) for donation to public libraries in the United States. In 2002 Saudi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal) donated $500,000 to CAIR to support the program.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations#_note-19) The Washington Times noted in 2003 that although CAIR claimed to have sent 37 packets, the city had received only one.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations#_note-20) The libraryproject.org page was last updated in 2005 and the domain became defunct.
CAIR coordinated the release (http://cair.com/FatwaJuly2005.pdf) of a fatwa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa) (religious pronouncement) that stated in part, “Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram or forbidden - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not martyrs.”
In 2005, following retracted media reports of the desecration of the Quran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an_desecration_controversy_of_2005) at Camp Delta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Delta) in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp), as well as negative stereotypes against Islam in the media, CAIR started an "Explore the Quran" campaign, intended to promote understanding of the Quran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran) by distributing complimentary copies to any interested member of the American public.
In 2006, during the worldwide Muslim outrage over the publication of cartoons visually depicting Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad), CAIR responded by launching an educational program "Explore the Life of Muhammad" aimed at providing free copies of a DVD or book about the life of the Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad) to any person who requests it. Over 16,000 requests were received as of September 2006.
In June 2006, CAIR announced a $50 million project to influence the American media ($10 million per year for five years). According to the article, the project will be spearheaded by Paul Findleya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Findley) former US Congressman. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alwaleed_bin_Talal) was going to be contacted to help fund the project.

oh lord, help us from these insane people!!! OH NOES!!! NOT LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGNS! NOOOOOOOOOO! :csad::csad::csad::csad:

[Spider-Bite]

You want facts that prove that I don't believe in something? Um okay...I'll give it a shot. First of all, don't believe anything you read on the internet just because you read it on the internet. I could write "sky is red" on my website and that wouldn't make it so. Also, Lou Dobbs? CNN? The media in general can be sketchy at best. Again, just because it's on TV doesn't make it real. Also, it seems like all the time we are told to brace ourselves for this and that. Threat level is orange today. Don't eat Halloween candy. Don't celebrate Christmas. Threat level is blue now. Don't fly. Duct tape your house to save yourself. The terrorists are coming! Now, honestly, has any of this actually been a problem? Did our candy get poisoned? Did the shopping malls blow up at Christmas. Did we duct tape ourselves in and saved ourselves from a gas attack? No. None of that happened. Also, if there were a terrorist threat we'd be hunting them down instead of wasting billions of dollars looking into Iraq's and now Iran's weapons of mass destruction. These aren't terrorists that have weapons of mass destruction, they are governments. That's who we went after. Not terrorists.

How dare you say we weren't changed after 9/11. We all were. But there is a difference between being changed and being blind.


There is the possible threat that Iran would give weapons of mass destruction to Alqueda, but our intelligence agencies believe that is unlikely because the Iran government might not trust Alquida not to use it on them or threaten them with it. Remember Iran is *****e. Alquida is Sunni.

[Spider-Bite]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21897354

[Steve Rogers]

If that were true we'd be going after Al Quida more, not the Iranian nuclear program.

[Spider-Bite]

If that were true we'd be going after Al Quida more, not the Iranian nuclear program.


If what were true?

[SuBe]

Here are some of the latest statistics that I'm sure you won't find reported in the mainstream media.

Violence in Iraq is down by 50%.
Civilian casualties in Iraq are down by 60%.
Baghdad casualties are down by 75%.
Basra violence is down by 90%.
Terrorist attacks in Iraq are down by 80%.
Remember ... Democrats, and that includes their followers travelers in the media, are invested in failure in Iraq. They are dedicated to the cause of bringing our troops home in defeat. Could we have won World War II with today's Democrats in charge? Possibly not.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/surge-numbers-show-amazing-progress-in.html

[ShadowBoxing]

I kinda have to agree with SB....these guys actually believe they can subjugate the West and the United States and are willing to sacrifice anyone committed to their cause. I think as a country, we should be a little more concerned with it.....I hate American Idol
Well it's not just that even. Laws become kind of embedded. For example, out in New Mexico I believe there is a helium factory where the Government makes helium for...get this...derigibles. Yes, the military vehicles. The ones we don't use anymore. Well, long story short, there have been several attempts to get rid of it but the factory provides so many jobs it gets shot down by the legislatures every time it comes up.

Think about prohibition. Alcohol is easily a strain on society, but so many people make money and so much of our infrastructure is built up around alcohol that it's hard to make it illegal. By the same token, think about how many cops would lose jobs if marajauana became legal. In addition the alcohol lobbyists fear that beer will face a drop in sales if pot became legal. So ultimately it's not about necessarily violating a belief system so much as making a belief system out of inherent contradictions that have come about as a result of previous legislation.

[Mr Sparkle]

There is the possible threat that Iran would give weapons of mass destruction to Alqueda, but our intelligence agencies believe that is unlikely because the Iran government might not trust Alquida not to use it on them or threaten them with it. Remember Iran is *****e. Alquida is Sunni.

yeah, wow.
it's ****ing Machiavellian and none of you seem to put the pieces together.
was Saddam insane? sure
Is I'madinnerjacket as insane? sure
are they a danger to the US? Bull****.

[SuBe]

If that were true we'd be going after Al Quida more, not the Iranian nuclear program.
Please remember that AlQueda is Arabic for "Foundation" or "Network". It is a coalition of people and Ideas. Not a formalized group of people like a government.

[Venom'sDad]

Bill Clinton was probably the most honest President in history. And I'm being 100% serious when I say that.

:D :D :D ROTFLMAO!!!! :D :D :D

[Mr Sparkle]

Remember ... Democrats, and that includes their followers travelers in the media, are invested in failure in Iraq. They are dedicated to the cause of bringing our troops home in defeat. Could we have won World War II with today's Democrats in charge? Possibly not.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/surge-numbers-show-amazing-progress-in.html

ok, why are are they interested in bringing the US troops home " in defeat"?
why only democrats as well?
why exactly? can you tell me that?

[Mr Sparkle]

Please remember that AlQueda is Arabic for "Foundation" or "Network". It is a coalition a people and Ideas. Not a group of formalized group of people like a government.

actually, it means " the base"

[Steve Rogers]

If what were true?
Never mind. Maybe they are both as guilty.

All we got is a bunch of maybes and wild accqusations. We have zero concrete proof that anyone has the capability to wipe us off the map, and yet, here in America we have concrete proof that the health care system is in shambles, social security is a myth and the economy is spiraling downward. Why don't we fix those problems? Basically the government is protecting a bunch of citizens too poor to take care of themselves and have a good life from a highly unlikly threat from abroad.

I thought the point of the Patriot Act was to catch terrorism here before it started. Then why do we need to get mired in the problems in the middle east?

[Steve Rogers]

Please remember that AlQueda is Arabic for "Foundation" or "Network". It is a coalition of people and Ideas. Not a formalized group of people like a government.I didn't say it was like a government.

[Spider-Bite]

Here are some of the latest statistics that I'm sure you won't find reported in the mainstream media.

Violence in Iraq is down by 50%.
Civilian casualties in Iraq are down by 60%.
Baghdad casualties are down by 75%.
Basra violence is down by 90%.
Terrorist attacks in Iraq are down by 80%.
Remember ... Democrats, and that includes their followers travelers in the media, are invested in failure in Iraq. They are dedicated to the cause of bringing our troops home in defeat. Could we have won World War II with today's Democrats in charge? Possibly not.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/surge-numbers-show-amazing-progress-in.html


down from when, two days ago? it goes up and down. wasn't last month like another record setter?

You talk about the media cherry picking and then you use advertising gimmicks. Whitens teeth 50% better. Well 50% better than what, coffee?

You forget there is a thing called Fox news. It has the highest ratings of any other channel and an extreme right wing tilt.

Plus those numbers aren't even compatible with each other. If every single form of violence is down by more than 50%, some as high as 80 or 90, than how is the overall violence only down 50%? Is there some new form of violence making up for it, left off your list?

warning: never believe anything posted at a religous site. It's just more of organized religion promoting war, violence, and hatred.

[Mr Sparkle]

Never mind. Maybe they are both as guilty.

All we got is a bunch of maybes and wild accqusations. We have zero concrete proof that anyone has the capability to wipe us off the map, and yet, here in America we have concrete proof that the health care system is in shambles, social security is a myth and the economy is spiraling downward. Why don't we fix those problems? Basically the government is protecting a bunch of citizens too poor to take care of themselves and have a good life from a highly unlikly threat from abroad.

I thought the point of the Patriot Act was to catch terrorism here before it started. Then why do we need to get mired in the problems in the middle east?

now do you see why I dislike it?

[Mr Sparkle]

I like how supermanbeyond is " beyond" responding to my posts.
I like people like that, he's kicking it Celldog style!

[SuBe]

I didn't say it was like a government.
I'm saying that Al Queda is not a single entity.

[Steve Rogers]

now do you see why I dislike it?
Not really. I think you are unhappy with the way it is being utilized. But, if its honest to god intentions are to stop domestic terrorism, I still don't see why you don't like it.

[Mr Sparkle]

Not really. I think you are unhappy with the way it is being utilized. But, if its honest to god intentions are to stop domestic terrorism, I still don't see why you don't like it.

because that's a very big "if" given the fact that Iraq was going to kill the US with it's massive stockpiles of biological weapons and missiles.

and then, whoops, no weapons, but thanks for all the money we got for my friends in the weapons industry and companies like halliburton.

[Mr Sparkle]

I'm saying that Al Queda is not a single entity.

it's everywhere...like Jesus, or the force.
except evil!!!!

[Steve Rogers]

because that's a very big "if" given the fact that Iraq was going to kill the US with it's massive stockpiles of biological weapons and missiles.

and then, whoops, no weapons, but thanks for all the money we got for my friends in the weapons industry and companies like halliburton.Well, one of the reasons I initially loved the Patriot Act is it really seemed like an alternative to war. The way looked at it, if they were going to listen in on us to catch the bad guys instead of blowing them up in their country of origin, I had no problem with that.

But along came the war in Iraq and threw a monkey wrench into everything. At first it was about removing the Sadaam regime, then it became about weapons of mass destruction, and then it became about catching terrorists. At the point, the war makes the Act obsolete.

To me, the Patriot Act isn't the problem. It's the war. Now, that, I don't support.

[turtlefocker]

Vote Obama or have sex with men

[rdh007]

Vote Obama or have sex with men
What about turtles???

[sinewave]

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/11/20/1110617-obama-i-tried-drugs-as-a-teen?threadId=178795&cmt=1202687#c1202687

Eh. Didn't really change my opinion on the guy and I'm still unsure of him as President, but at least he can admit he did it, unlike some other Presidents I can name...:o

isn't this old news? he's been upfront about this with the press before, i'm sure of it.

[turtlefocker]

What about turtles???


Only with Obama will turtlefocking be legalized.

[rdh007]

Finally. What an under-represented group.

[unstoppable]

doesn't everybody :huh:

[Kritish]

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/11/20/1110617-obama-i-tried-drugs-as-a-teen?threadId=178795&cmt=1202687#c1202687

Eh. Didn't really change my opinion on the guy and I'm still unsure of him as President, but at least he can admit he did it, unlike some other Presidents I can name...:o

BIG. ****ING. DEAL.

Bush was charged with cocaine and DWI's in his youth. Clinton cigar ****ed an intern and "didn't inhale". Warren G. Harding was known to gamble and drink in the white house. People will use anything to bash Obama.

[Shoemeister]

People will use anything to bash Obama.

I'm gonna opt for a lead pipe.

[Apollo]

this is going to be all on FOX news and they are going to make a big deal about it.

[Kritish]

this is going to be all on FOX news and they are going to make a big deal about it.

Fox news is also the group that claims he's a Muslim. :whatever:

[SolidSnakeMGS]

No offence, but drugs are for morons who don't know the value of life. If someone needs controlled substances to make them feel good, then they obviously don't have any idea of what art, theatre, music, fine dining, and women, are.

No offense? More like try NOT to be offensive. Your post was insulting, stereotypical, ignorant, and completely incorrect.

[Hotwire]

this is going to be all on FOX news and they are going to make a big deal about it.
What's funny, is this is old news. I remember him saying this sometime back when, I believe, he was running for senate.

[Apollo]

Tonight on the O'reilly Factor!

"This just In, Obama said he took Drugs as a Kid! WOW! Will this damage his reputation? and hurt his run for president? Ann coulter has the analysis"

"And do Porn Stars go to far in Public Clubs? we have the footage!"

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

Good for him. I have newfound respect for his honesty. I truly think he's a good guy with some good ideas. (Yes, I am that super conservative guy but unlike most posters here, can keep an open mind.)

[Scar Predator]

Who didnt?

Sh**. Find me someone below the age of 50 that didn't try some sh** in their youth.

You're talking to him. I have never had any alcohol either. I also played multiple sports in high school and college, and I still lift regularly, but never touched a steroid or HGH. Drugs suck, period. SXE.

As far as Obama and other politicians are concerned, I don't hold them accountable for long past mistakes. That's human nature. My point of interest is whether or not they will take a strong anti-drug stand as Pres.

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

No offense? More like try NOT to be offensive. Your post was insulting, stereotypical, ignorant, and completely incorrect.

Mission Accomplished. I take it you are/were a satisfied drug user? :hyper:

[ShadowBoxing]

Mission Accomplished. I take it you are/were a satisfied drug user? :hyper:
Speaking as someone who is not a drug user, your statements were baseless and incorrect. Not only does it show a complete lack of knowledge regarding the history and nature of drug laws but it also shows that you have utterly fallen for the hype. Almost every single professor I had who practiced law or was still a lawyer in some capacity said the most backwards laws in this country were drug laws. In fact to me, as someone who studied law and politics it's impossible to even attempt to justify nearly half of them. I mean for starters it's those laws that are wholly responsible for prison overcrowding and also accounts for most of the repeat offenders. Hell, some drugs, like steroids and pot are still justified illegal with outdated research that's been debunked by the Government itself.

[Scar Predator]

. I mean for starters it's those laws that are wholly responsible for prison overcrowding and also accounts for most of the repeat offenders. Hell, some drugs, like steroids and pot are still justified illegal with outdated research that's been debunked by the Government itself.

Oh...whaaaaa! If those people don't want to go to prison, then stop using drugs. It's that simple.

[Kritish]

Oh...whaaaaa! If those people don't want to go to prison, then stop using drugs. It's that simple.

IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. THAT. WAY!

They're called addicts for a reason, and oh so often there's no attempt to rehabilitate them.

[Scar Predator]

IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. THAT. WAY!

They're called addicts for a reason, and oh so often there's no attempt to rehabilitate them.

It surely can. #1-Never Start #2-If you do, get help #3-If you go to jail due to drug use, it's a wake-up call that you have a problem.

There are a plethora of resources that people can use to get clean.

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

Speaking as someone who is not a drug user, your statements were baseless and incorrect. Not only does it show a complete lack of knowledge regarding the history and nature of drug laws but it also shows that you have utterly fallen for the hype. Almost every single professor I had who practiced law or was still a lawyer in some capacity said the most backwards laws in this country were drug laws. In fact to me, as someone who studied law and politics it's impossible to even attempt to justify nearly half of them. I mean for starters it's those laws that are wholly responsible for prison overcrowding and also accounts for most of the repeat offenders. Hell, some drugs, like steroids and pot are still justified illegal with outdated research that's been debunked by the Government itself.

The progressiveness of drug laws was never under review in my original post. It's the relationship of law, and morality, that I mentioned, and you missed totally. This may come as a shock to you, but most of the laws that have ever been enforced by courts has somehow been influenced by organized religion, and/or moral beliefs. Hence the need for a Court of Equity in the UK, headed by the Lord Chancellor, who in the old days was a man of God. Besides the Common Law system (judge-made legal system), laws were adopted on old latin maxims, and what was felt to be moral, and just in the eyes of the Lord Chancellor, who was basically, a voice of the Church of England. The problematic area here is that, in the 17th century, on order of the King, it was held that if there ever was a conflict between existing judge-made law, and a decision based purely on morality, the Lord Chancellor would succeed.

That's just one example of how laws, as a whole, are driven by morality. Hell, even "murder", which was prohibited by religion, was deemed a crime by the common law courts as it was a sin to do so, and the Church could not impose sanctions themselves.

Face it, general consensus deems drug abuse to be immoral. The laws support that view.

The backwardness was never discussed, neither did I ever mention history, or progressiveness of what the situation was in the USA. But, as a whole, drug abuse, if you do a little research, is thought to be a vile, and disgusting habit, not just by religious fanatics, the Church goers, or the people declaring Jihad, but by the greater population of the world.

Drug laws may be backward, but they are not useless. Progress is being made, not just in the US, but worldwide. Here's an extract from the United Nations World Drug Report 2007:

Overview:

The global drug problem is being contained. The production
and consumption of cannabis, cocaine,
amphetamines and ecstasy have stabilized at the global
level – with one exception. The exception is the continuing
expansion of opium production in Afghanistan.
This expansion continues to pose a threat - to the security
of the country and to the global containment of
opiates abuse. Even in Afghanistan, however, the large
scale production of opium is concentrated and expanding
in a few southern provinces where the authority of
the central government is currently limited and insurgents
continue to exploit the profits of the opium trade.

Signs of progress:

Most indications are, however, that Member States do
have the will to re-commit to drug control. Although it
is outside of the scope of this Report to assess policy, the
estimates and trends which are provided in the following
pages contain several examples of progress forged on
the back of international collaboration. The extent of
international collaboration, the sharing of intelligence,
knowledge and experience, as well as the conviction
that the global drug problem must be tackled on the
basis of a ‘shared responsibility’ seem to be growing and
bearing fruit.

Research:

Information on the quantities of drugs seized was provided
by 118 countries for the year 2005 in reply to
UNODC’s Annual Reports Questionnaire. Supplementing
ARQ data with information obtained from
other sources1, UNODC has compiled data and information
from 165 countries and territories.

North America and the need for treatment of drug users:

The demand for drug abuse treatment is an important
indicator for assessing the world drug situation because
it reveals the drugs which place the largest burden on
national health systems. Member States reported a total
of 4.5 million people under treatment for drug abuse to
UNODC. Of the 25 million people (0.6% of the
world’s population age 15-65) estimated to be heavily drug dependent, about 1 out of 5 are treated for their
problem.

The number of persons under treatment is higher than
was reported in last year’s World Drug Report (3.7 million).
Most of the increase is due to better reporting
(notably from countries in South America). The actual
world total may be higher given the large number of
countries which do not have comprehensive registry systems.
Based on reported data, some 700 out of every million
persons were treated for drug abuse in 2005. The highest
numbers of drug treatment (per million inhabitants)
are found in the Americas (3,670), the Oceania region
(2,290), and Europe (850). Within the Americas, treatment
levels in North America are the highest (5,050),
and within Europe treatment is far more frequent in
Western Europe (1,400) than in the rest of the continent
(360). Treatment levels in Asia (120) and in Africa
(30) are low. In recent years much of the progress made
at the global level in stabilizing or reducing drug consumption
occurred in North America, the Oceania
region and Western Europe, where more treatment
capacity was created.

In the end, drug use, whether or not acceptable to the user, is a moral wrong, and it's illegal, no matter how "backward" the laws are. Backwardness is not an argument to break the law.

Final thoughts: laws should be abided by, and drugs should be avoided, as per the legal system which your country has.

Thank you for reading.

[Spider-Bite]

Probably more than 3/4 of the world's population.



I'm glad to be one of those people.



Good point. No actually does.



No offence, but drugs are for morons who don't know the value of life. If someone needs controlled substances to make them feel good, then they obviously don't have any idea of what art, theatre, music, fine dining, and women, are.

:hyper:


Look man, I have a problem with drug addiction. I started when I was young and inexperienced in life, and now I'm trying really hard to quit. It's hard.

I gurantee you I am hardly a moron. I know the value of life. It should be treated as if it were sacred. I'm not really fascinated by art. I'm not into theatre. but that has nothing to do with drug addiction. And
Einstein was a potthead.

Trust me. I know what women and music are. I use my headphones for about 20 hours a week. Amazing dancer. Aren't most musicians addicted to drugs?

fine dining? oh geez, get over yourself. I prefer a home cooked tenderloin.

Did you ever stop to think maybe some people have severe personal problems, and sometimes they feel overwhelmed, and the drugs temporarily take them off of your mind? Also did you ever stop to think that maybe they are simply addicted?

oh yeah while your calling people morons, did you ever think maybe some people are into different things? Maybe I was into marital arts. maybe I'm into sports. Actually i was into martial arts. What's your excuse? Is there some reason YOU don't know what these are, and that's why you didn't mention them in your post?

[Spider-Bite]

The progressiveness of drug laws was never under review in my original post. It's the relationship of law, and morality, that I mentioned, and you missed totally. This may come as a shock to you, but most of the laws that have ever been enforced by courts has somehow been influenced by organized religion, and/or moral beliefs. Hence the need for a Court of Equity in the UK, headed by the Lord Chancellor, who in the old days was a man of God. Besides the Common Law system (judge-made legal system), laws were adopted on old latin maxims, and what was felt to be moral, and just in the eyes of the Lord Chancellor, who was basically, a voice of the Church of England. The problematic area here is that, in the 17th century, on order of the King, it was held that if there ever was a conflict between existing judge-made law, and a decision based purely on morality, the Lord Chancellor would succeed.

That's just one example of how laws, as a whole, are driven by morality. Hell, even "murder", which was prohibited by religion, was deemed a crime by the common law courts as it was a sin to do so, and the Church could not impose sanctions themselves.

Face it, general consensus deems drug abuse to be immoral. The laws support that view.

The backwardness was never discussed, neither did I ever mention history, or progressiveness of what the situation was in the USA. But, as a whole, drug abuse, if you do a little research, is thought to be a vile, and disgusting habit, not just by religious fanatics, the Church goers, or the people declaring Jihad, but by the greater population of the world.

Drug laws may be backward, but they are not useless. Progress is being made, not just in the US, but worldwide. Here's an extract from the United Nations World Drug Report 2007:

Overview:



Signs of progress:



Research:



North America and the need for treatment of drug users:



In the end, drug use, whether or not acceptable to the user, is a moral wrong, and it's illegal, no matter how "backward" the laws are. Backwardness is not an argument to break the law.

Final thoughts: laws should be abided by, and drugs should be avoided, as per the legal system which your country has.

Thank you for reading.


No drug use is not a moral wrong. Your throwing out bigotry now. That is a moral wrong.

Laws should be ENFORCED. If you choose to take that risk of going to jail, than that is your choice, and I wont judge you as a person unless you are committing a crime against others. If you are ruining your own life, than all I can offer is sympathy, and hope that you fix it. But I wont judge a person by their problems, as that is a moral wrong. It is selfish and ignorant.

[Spider-Bite]

man mehzeb really has this notion that he is simply better than everybody else.

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

man mehzeb really has this notion that he is simply better than everybody else.

That's a bit of a leap. Drug addiction doesn't just kill you, it kills everyone around you who cares for your sake. Sadly enough, most drug addicts think of themselves, and not of their loved ones, who more often than not, are sucked into the void.

This comes from being close to an addict, and helping that person to overcome the addiction. That's why I'm prejudiced against it. Not because I'm a bigot, or because I have anything against these people, but simply out of the hope that other people don't have to go through what I had to. Coz, believe me, addiction doesn't just kill the user... it tears up families, and relationships.

Peripheral damage is great in addiction cases. As someone who has first-hand experience, I'm sure you know what I mean. Has your addiction ever hurt anyone who loved you?

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

No drug use is not a moral wrong. Your throwing out bigotry now. That is a moral wrong.

Laws should be ENFORCED. If you choose to take that risk of going to jail, than that is your choice, and I wont judge you as a person unless you are committing a crime against others. If you are ruining your own life, than all I can offer is sympathy, and hope that you fix it. But I wont judge a person by their problems, as that is a moral wrong. It is selfish and ignorant.

Morality is an objective concept, sport. It's society's perception of right and wrong. Morality on a subjective level has little meaning, other than parenting, or at the kitchen table. You teach your kids what you feel is morally right. That's yours to do. However, if to me, murdering rapists is morally justified, and then if I go on and do it, does it make it a moral act? No. Sorry. It's what the society as a whole thinks. It's not bigotry, nor is it ignorance. It's just the world we all live in.

Your argument for not judging a person who is breaking laws, simply coz they are ignorant, and damn-caring about going to jail is a compelling one. This argument could definitely be used for all crimes. Every criminal breaking the law does it with the chance that they would be caught, and sent to prison. Yet they do it. Does that mean we are not allowed to judge anyone for committing a crime?

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

Look man, I have a problem with drug addiction. I started when I was young and inexperienced in life, and now I'm trying really hard to quit. It's hard.

It's hard. I know. I've seen it happen to someone very close. But you'll get there.

I gurantee you I am hardly a moron. I know the value of life. It should be treated as if it were sacred. I'm not really fascinated by art. I'm not into theatre. but that has nothing to do with drug addiction. And
Einstein was a potthead.

I'm sorry, but you lacked the necessary common sense in the first place to have gotten yourself into this jam. I'm not going to judge you for what happened after the first day. But doing it in the first place was not a smart thing to do. But I can also relate to the fact that many young people do it coz they are ignorant, and think it would be fun to try out - that is the biggest mistake they make.

Trust me. I know what women and music are. I use my headphones for about 20 hours a week. Amazing dancer. Aren't most musicians addicted to drugs?

Most musicians are the reason why so many youngsters are drawn to drugs in the first place. Most teens make the mistake of trying out things they see their idols do, and think it would be cool to emulate that. That's again a misconception.

fine dining? oh geez, get over yourself. I prefer a home cooked tenderloin.

It was an example. Varies from person to person. Fine dining does have it's perks though. :hyper:

Did you ever stop to think maybe some people have severe personal problems, and sometimes they feel overwhelmed, and the drugs temporarily take them off of your mind? Also did you ever stop to think that maybe they are simply addicted?

Momentary relief solves nothing. Its a fact. You may forget your problems for that 15 mins, but after that, you're right back where you started. Delusions are nice, but it doesn't change anything. The weight of the world would still be on your shoulders once the drugs wear off.

oh yeah while your calling people morons, did you ever think maybe some people are into different things? Maybe I was into marital arts. maybe I'm into sports. Actually i was into martial arts. What's your excuse? Is there some reason YOU don't know what these are, and that's why you didn't mention them in your post?

Into different things? Well, it would be nice to be in things that are legal. Martial arts, sports, sure. All good. But I wouldn't encourage my next door neighbor to go and murder my 5 year old son, simply because their pastimes include murdering little children with a baseball bat. Yes, different people do different things. Different people get off on different things. But please, let the different things be socially acceptable, and non-criminal in nature.

[Scar Predator]

That's a bit of a leap. Drug addiction doesn't just kill you, it kills everyone around you who cares for your sake.

Coz, believe me, addiction doesn't just kill the user... it tears up families, and relationships.

?

Well said. That's why I hate recreational drugs with such a passion. The user is unlikely is just screw up their own brain but cause emotional and sometimes physical trauma to family, friends, and even strangers.

The bottom line is society simply cannot tolerate it's members giving themselves over to intoxicating/inhibiting substances. We have a legion of problems via the one legal drug, alcohol, and we certainly don't need any drug laws weakened or punishments lessened. As for the politicians that admit their use, I can forgive that and still vote for them as long as they pledge to keep up the good fight.

[Cylon]

Didn't really change my opinion on the guy...Why would it? Unless, y'know, you're a tool.

[logansoldcigar]

Law, morality, and social acceptability. These three are interconnected. Society's perception of appropriateness is our guiding signal to what's right and wrong. Arguing against social norms, and starting a crusade to bring drugs on the same par as alcohol have been tried in the past. The 70s come to mind. And comparing Caffeine to say, marijuana is as absurd as comparing hydrochloric acid and fresh mountain water, simply on the basis that they're both in liquid form. Drugs are deadly addictive, and ruin lives. Caffeine is addictive, yes, but people don't rob stores, and kill people for caffeine.

what if it were illegal, and only available on the black market?
do you think that some (and i stress, some) caffeine users might?

[logansoldcigar]

They are already planning a 2nd 9/11. Did you not hear about JFK International? Do you not pay attention to what is going on in the news? What about Fort Dix? They want to hurt us, Kill us, demoralize us, until we become an Islamic State. That is their goal, and igoring it will not make it go away.

Ignoring for the moment the MO, Don't most of the world's leading religions effectively state the same thing, that theirs is the one true religion and one should worship that church and that church only?

Ive seen plenty of comments on here from christians complaining about a lack of christian prayer in school ect. aren't they trying to enforce their religion on others?

[Scar Predator]

what if it were illegal, and only available on the black market?
do you think that some (and i stress, some) caffeine users might?

There is a disease called Caffeine Related Disorder which is an extreme hypersensitivity to stimulants. There might be a few of those people who would do something illegal but it's more likely that they would turn to something else since CDR is usually related to polysubstance abuse.
Of all the drugs out there, Caffeine is the one about which I worry the least. It's not an intoxicant or inhibitor. Now these multi-stimulant energy drinks are a different story. Those are dangerous.

[logansoldcigar]

the point is, people only break the law to get non legal drugs. people still break laws governing where we casn and cant smoke, they get that desperate for a nicoteine hit (and if they didnt, we wouldnt get fines for smoking in non smoking areas).
Ban caffeine, and someone somewhere will break the law to get the money for a hit.
Prohibition doesnt work. never has. it just enables the bad people to get richer

[Scar Predator]

the point is, people only break the law to get non legal drugs. people still break laws governing where we casn and cant smoke, they get that desperate for a nicoteine hit (and if they didnt, we wouldnt get fines for smoking in non smoking areas).
Ban caffeine, and someone somewhere will break the law to get the money for a hit.
Prohibition doesnt work. never has. it just enables the bad people to get richer

That is their decision. They need to weigh the options. I mean, I like tea. I drink it almost every day but if it was, for whatever reason, made illegal tomorrow, I wouldn't touch it again. It's not worth a fine or jail time.

[SuBe]

Ignoring for the moment the MO, Don't most of the world's leading religions effectively state the same thing, that theirs is the one true religion and one should worship that church and that church only?

Ive seen plenty of comments on here from christians complaining about a lack of christian prayer in school ect. aren't they trying to enforce their religion on others?
Logan, First, do you smoke cigars? I love'em, we should chat. Second, I am against any religion from forcing any one into practicing anything they don't want to do. That includes Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Jedi, Ect. I don't believe there should be Organized Worship/prayer in school. But there is nothing at all wrong with the individual student praying at there desk, on playground ect, if they are punished it is a form of Thought Crime.

[CK1]

Can someone please give me some Pros and Cons about Obama?

[logansoldcigar]

Logan, First, do you smoke cigars? I love'em, we should chat. Second, I am against any religion from forcing any one into practicing anything they don't want to do. That includes Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Jedi, Ect. I don't believe there should be Organized Worship/prayer in school. But there is nothing at all wrong with the individual student praying at there desk, on playground ect, if they are punished it is a form of Thought Crime.

occasionally. and I also have the occasional cigarette.

righto: Dont most religions instruct their followers that theirs is the one true faith, and to follow others is wrong?
Isnt that thought control? doesnt christianity (Im no expert here, btw) instruct its follows to preach and convert?
It strikes me that the founders off almost all modern religion want exactly the same as the muslim fanatics do. just a different MO.
as far as i can see it

[ShadowBoxing]

The progressiveness of drug laws was never under review in my original post. It's the relationship of law, and morality, that I mentioned, and you missed totally.
I didn't miss it. It wasn't true the first time you said and it isn't true now. Most laws come from politics and changes in political sentiment. There was once laws in this country saying that black peoples were 3/4th of an individual, deserved no protected rights and ought to be shot if they flee their white masters. Are you going to argue that there is an element of "morality" in those laws?
This may come as a shock to you, but most of the laws that have ever been enforced by courts has somehow been influenced by organized religion, and/or moral beliefs.
Wow, um, incorrect again all laws come from special interest groups, think tanks and politicians. Religious groups, to this day, have never written, passed, signed, vetoed or entered a law into Congress. And why does "organized religion" have some special claim on morality, last I checked they wanted gays to be second class citizens and have evolution barred from being taught in science class...
Hence the need for a Court of Equity in the UK, headed by the Lord Chancellor, who in the old days was a man of God. Besides the Common Law system (judge-made legal system), laws were adopted on old latin maxims, and what was felt to be moral, and just in the eyes of the Lord Chancellor, who was basically, a voice of the Church of England. The problematic area here is that, in the 17th century, on order of the King, it was held that if there ever was a conflict between existing judge-made law, and a decision based purely on morality, the Lord Chancellor would succeed.

That's just one example of how laws, as a whole, are driven by morality. Hell, even "murder", which was prohibited by religion, was deemed a crime by the common law courts as it was a sin to do so, and the Church could not impose sanctions themselves.
By this logic all laws in fact are driven by Hammurabi's code. Unfortunately Americans don't base their laws in English common law, in fact the founding fathers hated common law in part because of it's ties to the Church of England. We base our legal system in the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and to a lesser extent judicial precedent.
Face it, general consensus deems drug abuse to be immoral. The laws support that view.
General consensus, around 65%, voted that gays should not be aloud to hold teaching positions. Are you for this as well. Unfortunately, for you, again you are wrong. Majority rule is not what this country is based on.
The backwardness was never discussed, neither did I ever mention history, or progressiveness of what the situation was in the USA. But, as a whole, drug abuse, if you do a little research, is thought to be a vile, and disgusting habit, not just by religious fanatics, the Church goers, or the people declaring Jihad, but by the greater population of the world.
Again, why should I base a law on misconceptions about something? Most people in this world don't believe in modern medicine, don't even have access to that kind of education, so should I decide to outlaw it because most of the world fails to understand it based on it's own merits?
Drug laws may be backward, but they are not useless. Progress is being made, not just in the US, but worldwide. Here's an extract from the United Nations World Drug Report 2007:

None of what you post in any way, shape or form indicates that drug use (or what drugs in particular) are morally wrong. It also only indicates that we are doing a "better" job of containing the "problems" caused by drugs, it does not say to what extent or whether or not we would be better off with legalization or not.

And no, "the law is the law" is not any justification for following the law.

[logansoldcigar]

That is their decision. They need to weigh the options. I mean, I like tea. I drink it almost every day but if it was, for whatever reason, made illegal tomorrow, I wouldn't touch it again. It's not worth a fine or jail time.

and its the same for people addicted to charlie or horse. no one but themselves make the decision to break the law(ignoring that possesion is a crime in itself). again, i wouldnt, even for some high class caffeine.(were it illegal). But just as people that take currently illegal narcotics will break the law to get the funds to pay for a hit, it would be the same were other narcorics made illegal.(booze n smokes). Not every user would rob , murder ect. but some would. (which was the point)

as i said, prohibition didnt stop people from drinking

[ShadowBoxing]

That is their decision. They need to weigh the options. I mean, I like tea. I drink it almost every day but if it was, for whatever reason, made illegal tomorrow, I wouldn't touch it again. It's not worth a fine or jail time.
So essentially what you're saying is you'd bend over backwards to appease the Government, as opposed to the other way around.

[Steve Rogers]

So essentially what you're saying is you'd bend over backwards to appease the Government, as opposed to the other way around.
I think he's saying he choses to obey the law.

[ShadowBoxing]

I think he's saying he choses to obey the law.
...even to the point where it seems irrational and unjustified. Would you like me to carry that to it's logical conclusion?

[Steve Rogers]

...even to the point where it seems irrational and unjustified. Would you like me to carry that to it's logical conclusion?I think he's just giving an example of what he would do if something he enjoys was suddenly outlawed.

[raybia]

...even to the point where it seems irrational and unjustified. Would you like me to carry that to it's logical conclusion?

Yes even to that point.


In the meantime I would do everything in my power to work towards getting the law changes including organizing with those who think and feel as I do.

[sinewave]

That's a bit of a leap. Drug addiction doesn't just kill you, it kills everyone around you who cares for your sake. Sadly enough, most drug addicts think of themselves, and not of their loved ones, who more often than not, are sucked into the void.

This comes from being close to an addict, and helping that person to overcome the addiction. That's why I'm prejudiced against it. Not because I'm a bigot, or because I have anything against these people, but simply out of the hope that other people don't have to go through what I had to. Coz, believe me, addiction doesn't just kill the user... it tears up families, and relationships.

Peripheral damage is great in addiction cases. As someone who has first-hand experience, I'm sure you know what I mean. Has your addiction ever hurt anyone who loved you?

Well said. That's why I hate recreational drugs with such a passion. The user is unlikely is just screw up their own brain but cause emotional and sometimes physical trauma to family, friends, and even strangers.

The bottom line is society simply cannot tolerate it's members giving themselves over to intoxicating/inhibiting substances. We have a legion of problems via the one legal drug, alcohol, and we certainly don't need any drug laws weakened or punishments lessened. As for the politicians that admit their use, I can forgive that and still vote for them as long as they pledge to keep up the good fight.

you guys act like it's impossible to use recreational drugs without becoming addicted. some people are able to control their usage, enjoy their drug of choice and function in society without hurting themselves or people close to them. like anything that can be dangerous, it's all about moderation and using common sense. this is especially true of a lot people who use marijuana. i think you'd be surprised just how many successful, intelligent and well-balanced people use or have used illegal drugs on a regular basis without it negatively effecting their lives.

[ShadowBoxing]

That and not all drugs are addictive.

[terry78]

Too much of a good thing. Some people just have addictive personalities, where if something makes them feel good, they need to do the **** ALL the time, and can't take breaks.

[sinewave]

That and not all drugs are addictive.

yep, that too.

[raybia]

you guys act like it's impossible to use recreational drugs without becoming addicted. some people are able to control their usage, enjoy their drug of choice and function in society without hurting themselves or people close to them. like anything that can be dangerous, it's all about moderation and using common sense. this is especially true of a lot people who use marijuana. i think you'd be surprised just how many successful, intelligent and well-balanced people use or have used illegal drugs on a regular basis without it negatively effecting their lives.

I think the point they are trying to make is that:

1) most if not all recreational drugs are illegal

2) most studies and research show that recreational drugs are physically
harmful.

Also with the documented problems the U.S. has with drug and alcohol use, its clear that many people are not able to properly exercise moderation and common sense when using these substances and once it gets to the point of addiction then moderation and common sense gets thrown out of the window.

My grandfather was killed by a van full of drunk teenagers who ran a red light.
Whether those kids believed as you believe or not, if they would have obeyed the law, he would still be alive today.

i think you'd be surprised just how many successful, intelligent and well-balanced people use or have used illegal drugs on a regular basis that have negatively effected their lives.

[terry78]

Uusally, no one changes their tune about things until something hits close to home. That's just how we are. If some dude that's high decides to engage a friend in a knife fight and murders him, yes, I would begin to feel a hatred towards weed. Might not be rational, but that's how we're wired.

[sinewave]

I think the point they are trying to make is that:

1) most if not all recreational drugs are illegal

2) most studies and research show that recreational drugs are physically
harmful.

Also with the documented problems the U.S. has with drug and alcohol use, its clear that many people are not able to properly exercise moderation and common sense when using these substances and once it gets to the point of addiction then moderation and common sense gets thrown out of the window.

My grandfather was killed by a van full of drunk teenagers who ran a red light.
Whether those kids believed as you believe or not, if they would have obeyed the law, he would still be alive today.

i think you'd be surprised just how many successful, intelligent and well-balanced people use or have used illegal drugs on a regular basis that have negatively effected their lives.

i'm sorry to hear that about your grandfather, but a bunch of drunk teens out for a joy ride is a lot different than a responsible adult making the decision to smoke a joint every night after work.

[raybia]

Uusally, no one changes their tune about things until something hits close to home. That's just how we are. If some dude that's high decides to engage a friend in a knife fight and murders him, yes, I would begin to feel a hatred towards weed. Might not be rational, but that's how we're wired.

I don't have a hatred of alcohol because my grandfather died but I do have a resentment for the kids who made the decision to break the law by drinking and
driving and the person and/or system that gave those kids access to that alcohol.

[raybia]

i'm sorry to hear that about your grandfather, but a bunch of drunk teens out for a joy ride is a lot different than a responsible adult making the decision to smoke a joint every night after work.

There are differences but there are similarities too.

Both are illegal and both have a potential to bring harm.

Now as far as the so-called responsible adult smoking pot is he smoking it at home where he is not in a position to have his judgment impared?

If so, then that is their choice to break the law and to potential kill brain cells. I do have a BIG problem with people who consume illegal drugs for recreational purposes who are in and interacting with the public.

Life is about making choices for oneself however it is also about facing the consequences of your actions as well.

My advise to anyone who decides to take illegal drugs for a recreational purpose is to "look before you leap" otherwise you may not like where you land.

[Steve Rogers]

this is especially true of a lot people who use marijuana. i think you'd be surprised just how many successful, intelligent and well-balanced people use or have used illegal drugs on a regular basis without it negatively effecting their lives.I only know like two people who don't smoke pot. All of those people are sucessful and inteligent and whatnot. Like you said. Personally, I'm not into drugs, but I don't knock those who do.

I do knock those who are addicted. But addiction is bad be it drugs, sex or compulsive shopping. Addiction is the problem; not drugs.

[sinewave]

There are differences but there are similarities too.

Both are illegal and both have a potential to bring harm.

Now as far as the so-called responsible adult smoking pot is he smoking it at home where he is not in a position to have his judgment impared?

If so, then that is their choice to break the law and to potential kill brain cells.

Life is about making choices for oneself however it is also about facing the consequences of your actions as well.

My advise to anyone who decides to take illegal drugs for a recreational purpose is to "look before you leap" otherwise you may not like where you land.

in your particular instance, though, the kids were underage and shouldn't have been drinking, let alone drinking and driving, and in my example, a responsible adult decided to use an illegal, non-addictive and relatively mild recreational drug in the privacy of his own home where there's a very minimal chance of harming anyone. there's a huge difference between the two.

[raybia]

in your particular instance, though, the kids were underage and shouldn't have been drinking, let alone drinking and driving, and in my example, a responsible adult decided to use an illegal, non-addictive and relatively mild recreational drug in the privacy of his own home where there's a very minimal chance of harming anyone. there's a huge difference between the two.

And the person in your example shouldn't have used drugs because its illegal.

I do agree there is a difference in the two examples but obviously many people don't follow the model for using illegal drugs given in your example and there lies the bigger more important issue.

[Spider-Bite]

That's a bit of a leap. Drug addiction doesn't just kill you, it kills everyone around you who cares for your sake. Sadly enough, most drug addicts think of themselves, and not of their loved ones, who more often than not, are sucked into the void.

This comes from being close to an addict, and helping that person to overcome the addiction. That's why I'm prejudiced against it. Not because I'm a bigot, or because I have anything against these people, but simply out of the hope that other people don't have to go through what I had to. Coz, believe me, addiction doesn't just kill the user... it tears up families, and relationships.

Peripheral damage is great in addiction cases. As someone who has first-hand experience, I'm sure you know what I mean. Has your addiction ever hurt anyone who loved you?

Honestly it just sounds like your pulling stuff out of the air and making assumptions. I didn't want to get real personal, but I'll share it. My drug problem is marijuana. Why is it a problem? Because I have a very bad anxiety disorder. It's made my life way difficult in so many different ways, much worse than you can probably gather from this post. Marijuana is very bad for an anxiety disorder. It severely interferes with your meds and it's just bad for it.

It's not killing me, but it's preventing me from chaning my life, and it's still so incredibly hard not to smoke it. This is my fourth day without it. It's hard.

My drug addiction has not torn up my family. I raised my little sister for the last 4 years. Her mother is taking over now, as I am in college full time. I rasied her good. I'd do anything for that kid.

The only way my addiction has hurt people around me is that they worried. I didn't turn into this burned out, crabby, phycho who wigs out on people.

And your original post I quoted wasn't referring to addicts. You said people who need drugs to feel good are morons.

The only negative effect marijuana has really had on me is the money I have spent, and it's negative implications for my anxiety disorder. I'm not minimizing it, because it's serious, but none of the generalizations you have made apply to me in any way, and I'm one of the biggest pottheads I ever met.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Who didnt?I didn't. I've never smoked drinked or tried any drug whatsoever. I guess I'm not human.:whatever:

[Spider-Bite]

There are differences but there are similarities too.

Both are illegal and both have a potential to bring harm.

Now as far as the so-called responsible adult smoking pot is he smoking it at home where he is not in a position to have his judgment impared?

If so, then that is their choice to break the law and to potential kill brain cells. I do have a BIG problem with people who consume illegal drugs for recreational purposes who are in and interacting with the public.

Life is about making choices for oneself however it is also about facing the consequences of your actions as well.

My advise to anyone who decides to take illegal drugs for a recreational purpose is to "look before you leap" otherwise you may not like where you land.


I looked but I was unable to see.

[Spider-Bite]

There are differences but there are similarities too.

Both are illegal and both have a potential to bring harm.

Now as far as the so-called responsible adult smoking pot is he smoking it at home where he is not in a position to have his judgment impared?

If so, then that is their choice to break the law and to potential kill brain cells. I do have a BIG problem with people who consume illegal drugs for recreational purposes who are in and interacting with the public.

Life is about making choices for oneself however it is also about facing the consequences of your actions as well.

My advise to anyone who decides to take illegal drugs for a recreational purpose is to "look before you leap" otherwise you may not like where you land.

on your sig. Your sig sounds kind of racist.

[raybia]

on your sig. Your sig sounds kind of racist.

Sounding racist and being racist is two different things.


The definition of a racist is a person with a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

That is a serious offense you are charging me with.

Please tell me how in the hell you arrived at accusing me of being racist based on my sig?

[turtlefocker]

what if it were illegal, and only available on the black market?
do you think that some (and i stress, some) caffeine users might?

I respect you more now than you will ever respect me

[bell110]

I think we shouldn't lump pot in with other "drugs". There is no reason that pot should be illegal.

[Flying Jokeshop]

I think we shouldn't lump pot in with other "drugs". There is no reason that pot should be illegal.


I agree, although some people shouldn't smoke it. For me, alchohol is a drug that I shouldn't take, it has a terrible destrucive affect on me. Using pot is much better for me.

[raybia]

I looked but I was unable to see.

Then I'd advise you to not leap.

[Matt]

And this has what to do with his stances or election campaign? I don't like Obama, but this is ridiculous non-news that is used to distract Americans from real issues.

[raybia]

And this has what to do with his stances or election campaign? I don't like Obama, but this is ridiculous non-news that is used to distract Americans from real issues.

Agree. It also contributes to the way America is perceived to the rest of the world.

[BlackLantern]

I think we shouldn't lump pot in with other "drugs". There is no reason that pot should be illegal.

and that stance is entirely your opinion....

[Matt]

Why do you support him? Really, I want to know. This entire Obama craze has been totally lost on me and I am curious as to what the appeal is. In all honesty, I also wonder, how many Obama supporters will come out and say they are voting for him on the grounds of him being black? (which I consider that just as bad as not voting for him on the grounds of his being black.) I ask because it seems he has taken a substantial lead in Iowa and it seems to that he lacks any kind of platform (sure, he will give vague ideas, but has never given a practical way to fund or carry out these grand schemes of his). He has no experience outside of 3 years in national politics, so that seems to me to be the equivilant of handing the reigns of a fortune 500 company to a CEO who has spent a few years in marketing. I can give a list of reasons why I support Richardson...I really wonder how many Obama voters can do the same (without using words like "He is fresh blood" or "He's an honest respectable guy....I know even though I've never met him"...y'know, using pseudo-reasons to cover up the fact that they are voting for him to show how 'liberal' they are)?

Note: I am not saying all Obama supporters are voting for him because he is charasmatic or black or trendy. I am simply asking to know why most people are supporting him.

[Kelly]

I think (and I'm not a Obama supporter, I'm still watching and listening) but I think the main reason is, out of all of the candidates (whether they are Republican, Democrat, whatever) he is the one that truly looks to bring "change" to Washington.......I'm not sure how much that will play out if he does in fact become president......BUT he is the one that tends to give that feeling to people......AND RIGHT NOW......above the war, above the economy, above foreign relations....PEOPLE WANT MASSIVE CHANGE......

They are not happy with the Legislative Branch, they are not happy with the Executive Branch, and they aren't sure about the Judicial Branch of our government at the moment.....they see him as being the one to bring a positive change to all of those things.........he hasn't given specifics to that change, but apparently people aren't needing specifics right now.

[Matt]

Assuming you are right Kel (and you may very well be)...I must ask, why hasn't Paul's candidacy picked up more steam. Or Kucinich. I mean, they seem like the two most likely to actually change things.

[Kelly]

Assuming you are right Kel (and you may very well be)...I must ask, why hasn't Paul's candidacy picked up more steam. Or Kucinich. I mean, they seem like the two most likely to actually change things.


He is in the wrong party.....and that has been, and will be his downfall....that speaks louder than anything he has to say......

[Matt]

If Ron Paul were a democrat, do you believe he would be winning?

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I don't think it's just a matter of the party, in simplest terms Paul lacks charisma.

[bored]

Assuming you are right Kel (and you may very well be)...I must ask, why hasn't Paul's candidacy picked up more steam. Or Kucinich. I mean, they seem like the two most likely to actually change things.

Because neither of them has convinced more than a handful of people that they could truly lead a country.

[Kelly]

If Ron Paul were a democrat, do you believe he would be winning?


No, he does not follow the platform of either of the solid 2 parties.....

[Wilhelm-Scream]

It would be nice to have a President who's articulate for a change?

[bored]

If Ron Paul were a democrat, do you believe he would be winning?

He'd be just as unsuccesful. Much as Paul has tried to win over college students with his anti-war stance, he's also an unabashed conservative (the anti-war thing comes from his isolationist beliefs, not a moral objection specificly to going into Iraq).

[Kelly]

I don't think it's just a matter of the party, in simplest terms Paul lacks charisma.



And yet, he has one of the largest (if not the largest by now) internet following of any of the candidates.....

[\S/JcDc\S/]

So you would say the general public finds Paul charismatic :confused:

[Kelly]

So you would say the general public finds Paul charismatic :confused:

I do not see internet users as the general public persay....but apparently there are quite a few that do find him so......

[bored]

Success on the internet doesn't do it for me. Howard Dean had success on the internet, then Kerry wiped the floor with him (and I don't blame it all on his "Yeargh!" speech).

[Kelly]

I agree with you bored, to a certain extent.......it does nothing for me either....BUT if you look at graphs of his popularity.....he took a MASSIVE dive after that little aaarrrggghhh.....situation.....and I'm talking a MASSIVE dive....

[Matt]

I don't think it's just a matter of the party, in simplest terms Paul lacks charisma.

So in other words, charisma qualifies an unqualified man who has no platform to be president?

[Matt]

I agree with you bored, to a certain extent.......it does nothing for me either....BUT if you look at graphs of his popularity.....he took a MASSIVE dive after that little aaarrrggghhh.....situation.....and I'm talking a MASSIVE dive....

Only because the media killed his campaign afterwards.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

He asked for a reason and I gave a pretty simple reason...With that said, why is Obama picking up steam with less experience than some of the other candidates? I don't believe it's simply him being part black causing interest, I believe there is a certain charisma he has that is starting to catch on with people. That's why he can pull ahead of more experienced candidates and some of which with the same said agenda/initiatives that he has. I don't believe Paul exudes enough of a personality. His message may get across to some but the masses are going to pay JUST as much attention to attitude, personality, warmth, etc... All in my opinion of course :o Just a simple opinion.

[Kelly]

Only because the media killed his campaign afterwards.


True....but you don't pull stupid stuff like that in your campaign....BECAUSE the media of today will crucify you.....thats just the nature of campaigning today....

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Btw Matt, funny thing in making my comments in this thread. HONESTLY never saw your little note at the bottom of original post for thread :) In terms of the note you have, you may not be saying it... But that doesn't mean it's existance is any less apparent. It would be ridiculous to say he isn't picking up some votes simply because of having some black in him, though in fairness he may be missing some votes because of this as well. The charisma though certainly is helping his campaign. Oh and Clinton (Hilary not Bill he had it in spades) does not have enough of it either imo to sustain. She just doesn't come off well. That and she only wears pant suits. Kind of odd, like she's afraid to wear a dress and admit to being a woman. She should lose some weight, put a dress on, some nylons, and smile every once in a while :up: Note: that may help her, but would certainly not help Obama *shudders*

[Kelly]

Btw Matt, funny thing in making my comments in this thread. HONESTLY never saw your little note at the bottom of original post for thread :) In terms of the note you have, you may not be saying it... But that doesn't mean it's existance is any less apparent. It would be ridiculous to say he isn't picking up some votes simply because of having some black in him, though in fairness he may be missing some votes because of this as well. The charisma though certainly is helping his campaign. Oh and Clinton (Hilary not Bill he had it in spades) does not have enough of it either imo to sustain. She just doesn't come off well. That and she only wears pant suits. Kind of odd, like she's afraid to wear a dress and admit to being a woman. She should lose some weight, put a dress on, some nylons, and smile every once in a while :up: Note: that may help her, but would certainly not help Obama *shudders*


LMAO, thats the most sexist thing I've read around here in a long time.......

[\S/JcDc\S/]

LMAO, thats the most sexist thing I've read around here in a long time.......

LOL that was the point :D

Just kidding ladies :p hee hee

[terry78]

Obama is a breath of fresh air, that's what it comes down to. Most people under 30 that aren't repubs say they would vote for him more than likely, and he he has garnered quite a bit of female attention as well, two groups that have been ignored for the most part.

[Erzengel]

Charisma and "likability" go a long way with voters. See Kennedy vs. Nixon or even Bush vs. Gore. It also helps that Obama seems to be the "trendy" especially with people like Oprah backing him. On the other side, Hillary even with more experience than Obama has 0 charisma or likability.

[Darthphere]

If Ron Paul were a democrat, do you believe he would be winning?

I doubt it. I think most of us just look at him and see the equivalent of that crazy homeless guy on the street corner telling us all we're all going to hell.

[Kelly]

Obama is a breath of fresh air, that's what it comes down to. Most people under 30 that aren't repubs say they would vote for him more than likely, and he he has garnered quite a bit of female attention as well, two groups that have been ignored for the most part.


The thing is......most in that age group are not primary voters....your primary voter is average age of 40 -- 60.....so come primary voting day, we will truly see if the polls equal to wins for him, looking back on the history of these polls.........more often than not, they are incorrect.....and that goes both for Democrats and Republicans. Its weird, primary voters usually will go with the "usual vote" so to speak and not what they said in a phone poll on the spur of the moment..........and the usual vote in this instance is Clinton...(THE NAME)....

Its going to be a very interesting primary season on both sides.......

[jaguarr]

Oh, another "Matt Hates Obama" thread. :oldrazz:

jag

[Kelly]

Oh, another "Matt Hates Obama" thread. :oldrazz:

jag

I don't think its so much Matt hates Obama, as it is, he can't figure out why anyone likes him......lol:hehe:

[jaguarr]

I don't think its so much Matt hates Obama, as it is, he can't figure out why anyone likes him......lol:hehe:

No, Matt hates Obama with the searing white heat of a billion suns. It's true.

jag

[Kelly]

LOL, well even as an independent.....I might would vote for the guy if I knew that he could bring the change that he says he desires........I just don't see that happening, with ANY PRESIDENT. I also don't know enough of the details about his tax reform, social security reform, or medical care reform.....to really know where he stands fiscally.....and that would be the major push for me, because in those areas, I would actually be considered conservative, except maybe in the area of social security, and as far as MY TAXES, I'm conservative...lol

[jaguarr]

Well, the thing with Obama is that he IS charismatic and he does give people hope for some change, which they are really wanting right now. His policies aren't very well fleshed out, I agree. However, he hasn't said anything that's really turned me OFF of his policies, either, which most of the candidates have managed to do at one point or another. I'm an independent voter myself and, frankly, I'm not really happy with this crop of candidates we have to choose from. All the Republicans are dirty, dirty, dirty and will continue Bushco business as usual. The Dem's....well, Hillary is just as bad as any Bushie and Obama hasn't really nailed down his platforms. Richardson is the only one I'd vote for, to be honest, but he'll never get the shot at the big chair.

jag

[Varient]

Why do you support him? Really, I want to know. This entire Obama craze has been totally lost on me and I am curious as to what the appeal is. In all honesty, I also wonder, how many Obama supporters will come out and say they are voting for him on the grounds of him being black? (which I consider that just as bad as not voting for him on the grounds of his being black.) I ask because it seems he has taken a substantial lead in Iowa and it seems to that he lacks any kind of platform (sure, he will give vague ideas, but has never given a practical way to fund or carry out these grand schemes of his). He has no experience outside of 3 years in national politics, so that seems to me to be the equivilant of handing the reigns of a fortune 500 company to a CEO who has spent a few years in marketing. I can give a list of reasons why I support Richardson...I really wonder how many Obama voters can do the same (without using words like "He is fresh blood" or "He's an honest respectable guy....I know even though I've never met him"...y'know, using pseudo-reasons to cover up the fact that they are voting for him to show how 'liberal' they are)?

Note: I am not saying all Obama supporters are voting for him because he is charasmatic or black or trendy. I am simply asking to know why most people are supporting him.

Still not Pro - Obama,.. but the longer I sit in my corner and let this mess wash over me in passing,.. the closer I come to going with him as the lesser of eight evils.

I don't like his stand on the war,.. but appreciate most of his domestic "policies".

I don't like how he strums the public,.. But can appreciate that he does have answers when cornered.

It also helps his case when MOST of his detractors cite silly stuff like "He was a smoker" as reason enough not to elect him.

Tsk.

V.

[jaguarr]

Still not Pro - Obama,.. but the longer I sit in my corner and let this mess wash over me in passing,.. the closer I come to going with him as the lesser of eight evils.

I don't like his stand on the war,.. but appreciate most of his domestic "policies".

I don't like how he strums the public,.. But can appreciate that he does have answers when cornered.

It also helps his case when MOST of his detractors cite silly stuff like "He was a smoker" as reason enough not to elect him.

Tsk.

V.

Can't disagree with any of this and I certainly have heard your sentiments echoed by many others. We KNOW the other candidates are dirty and have a history of raping the system and their constituents. At least with Obama, we aren't quite sure and MAYBE he might consider the possibility of potentially thinking about doing the right things with his power. Seems to be the gist of what some folks are thinking, anyway.

jag

[lazur]

It's quite funny that the question posed in the subject line of this thread hasn't actually been answered by anyone so far, except to say, "Obama is charismatic or articulate."

So was Kerry.

Obama, imo, seems to have no position on the core issues.

As for 'change' - all candidates promise change, but very few (once elected) provide it. And when they do, it's usually rejected.

Where's Clinton when we need him ... and NO, not his wife!

Seriously, where's our Reagan or Clinton in this upcoming election?

[jaguarr]

We aren't getting a Reagan or a Bill Clinton in this election, lazur. Closest thing we've got in terms of experience and ability to get the right things done is Richardson and he's fat, Mexican and ugly so there's no way he's getting elected.

jag

[Varient]

Can't disagree with any of this and I certainly have heard your sentiments echoed by many others. We KNOW the other candidates are dirty and have a history of raping the system and their constituents. At least with Obama, we aren't quite sure and MAYBE he might consider the possibility of potentially thinking about doing the right things with his power. Seems to be the gist of what some folks are thinking, anyway.

jag

Going one step further:

One guess who's out of the running completly by me because of the "mud-slinging via proxy" that canidate is officially not supporting "Yet" isn't doing too much damage control about accept "after the fact?"

Meh.

[jaguarr]

Going one step further:

One guess who's out of the running completly by me because of the "mud-slinging via proxy" that canidate is officially not supporting "Yet" isn't doing too much damage control about accept "after the fact?"

Meh.

Yeah, there's been a lot more "politics as usual" going on than someone's been willing to admit, hasn't there?

jag

[Kelly]

It's quite funny that the question posed in the subject line of this thread hasn't actually been answered by anyone so far, except to say, "Obama is charismatic or articulate."

So was Kerry.

Obama, imo, seems to have no position on the core issues.

As for 'change' - all candidates promise change, but very few (once elected) provide it. And when they do, it's usually rejected.

Where's Clinton when we need him ... and NO, not his wife!

Seriously, where's our Reagan or Clinton in this upcoming election?


LMFAO......

[lazur]

LMFAO......

I don't think anyone can argue that Kerry wasn't articulate and somewhat charismatic. He was completely full of ****, but none-the-less.

In fact, when he was campaigning against Bush, there were tons of people on this very forum who gave him accolades for those very qualities.

I wasn't one of them, mind you, because I couldn't stand him, but I also couldn't deny that people 'liked' his personality.

[Kelly]

Well, the thing with Obama is that he IS charismatic and he does give people hope for some change, which they are really wanting right now. His policies aren't very well fleshed out, I agree. However, he hasn't said anything that's really turned me OFF of his policies, either, which most of the candidates have managed to do at one point or another. I'm an independent voter myself and, frankly, I'm not really happy with this crop of candidates we have to choose from. All the Republicans are dirty, dirty, dirty and will continue Bushco business as usual. The Dem's....well, Hillary is just as bad as any Bushie and Obama hasn't really nailed down his platforms. Richardson is the only one I'd vote for, to be honest, but he'll never get the shot at the big chair.

jag

He is the only one with true, legitmate, domestic and foreign policy knowledge.......

It is VERY SAD, that he has no chance in hell at getting elected. MAYBE.....MAYBE.......MAYBE......he will be chosen as a running mate, which means there is a chance later on.......but for 2008, no chance.:csad:

[jaguarr]

He is the only one with true, legitmate, domestic and foreign policy knowledge.......

It is VERY SAD, that he has no chance in hell at getting elected. MAYBE.....MAYBE.......MAYBE......he will be chosen as a running mate, which means there is a chance later on.......but for 2008, no chance.:csad:

Our culture has been conditioned to vote for whoever is "popular" with the media rather than for the people who are most qualified to do the job at hand. As long as our country continues to run it's politics like a high school class election, we'll forever be in a tailspin.

jag

[hippie_hunter]

Since Richardson is obviously not going to get the nomination, I'm really hoping that he'll end up in an Administration as Secretary of State.

[cookiva]

I don't think it's just a matter of the party, in simplest terms Paul lacks charisma.

You are right. Not to look like a horrible person, but compare Paul and Kucinich to Obama. Visually, Obama is a god compared to Paul and Kucinich.

Granted, I hope people look past that for Kucinich....

And look to his wife. She will win it for him

[cookiva]

I don't think anyone can argue that Kerry wasn't articulate

Yeah, you are right about that one....



and somewhat charismatic.


HAHAHAHAHAHA. REALLY?

[jaguarr]

Kucinich and Paul's downfall isn't their looks, it's some of the things they say that overshadow any good ideas they may have to offer. They come off as flakes or even a little bit strange to the average American.

jag

[raybia]

Why do you support him? Really, I want to know. This entire Obama craze has been totally lost on me and I am curious as to what the appeal is. In all honesty, I also wonder, how many Obama supporters will come out and say they are voting for him on the grounds of him being black? (which I consider that just as bad as not voting for him on the grounds of his being black.) I ask because it seems he has taken a substantial lead in Iowa and it seems to that he lacks any kind of platform (sure, he will give vague ideas, but has never given a practical way to fund or carry out these grand schemes of his). He has no experience outside of 3 years in national politics, so that seems to me to be the equivilant of handing the reigns of a fortune 500 company to a CEO who has spent a few years in marketing. I can give a list of reasons why I support Richardson...I really wonder how many Obama voters can do the same (without using words like "He is fresh blood" or "He's an honest respectable guy....I know even though I've never met him"...y'know, using pseudo-reasons to cover up the fact that they are voting for him to show how 'liberal' they are)?

Note: I am not saying all Obama supporters are voting for him because he is charasmatic or black or trendy. I am simply asking to know why most people are supporting him.

I'm voting for him because he is so articulate.

[raybia]

Our culture has been conditioned to vote for whoever is "popular" with the media rather than for the people who are most qualified to do the job at hand. As long as our country continues to run it's politics like a high school class election, we'll forever be in a tailspin.

jag

QFT

Have I ever told you that I think you are really smart?

[jaguarr]

QFT

Have I ever told you that I think you are really smart?

You're pretty sharp yourself, lady. :up:

jag

[Erzengel]

Shouldnt' you, I don't know look into his based on his platform, his policies, his history, something other than being articulate?

[raybia]

You're pretty sharp yourself, lady. :up:

jag

http://ervilhokinha.no.sapo.pt/han.JPG

Who you calling scruffy-looking?

[raybia]

Shouldnt' you, I don't know look into his based on his platform, his policies, his history, something other than being articulate?

Yeah,yeah you are right. He is also bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,

[jaguarr]

http://ervilhokinha.no.sapo.pt/han.JPG

Who you calling scruffy-looking?

I just wanted to give you a flashback to a time when a bunch of us thought you were a woman. :flashback:

jag

[raybia]

I just wanted to give you a flashback to a time when a bunch of us thought you were a woman. :flashback:

jag

http://www.eeggs.com/images/items/509.full.jpg

Nope, definitely not a woman. :hehe:

[Steve Rogers]

We aren't getting a Reagan or a Bill Clinton in this election, lazur. Closest thing we've got in terms of experience and ability to get the right things done is Richardson and he's fat, Mexican and ugly so there's no way he's getting elected.

jag
Which is sad. We tend to vote people in for all the wrong reasons in this country and looks tend to be a big part of it. I think Richardson is the best candidate out there and I would love to see him in office. But sadly you are right. He's of Mexican descent and his a bit pudgy around the edges. People see that instead of his work in the UN, his work in New Mexico, or his ability to make a fine diplomat. But yeah, he's fat and brown, so all those points go out the window. Makes me wonder though...if FDR were alive today in an age with television, would the American people vote for a man in wheelchair? Could Richardson get elected in the 19th Century?

[raybia]

Which is sad. We tend to vote people in for all the wrong reasons in this country and looks tend to be a big part of it. I think Richardson is the best candidate out there and I would love to see him in office. But sadly you are right. He's of Mexican descent and his a bit pudgy around the edges. People see that instead of his work in the UN, his work in New Mexico, or his ability to make a fine diplomat. But yeah, he's fat and brown, so all those points go out the window. Makes me wonder though...if FDR were alive today in an age with television, would the American people vote for a man in wheelchair? Could Richardson get elected in the 19th Century?

Also wasn't FDR a widow?

[Steve Rogers]

Also wasn't FDR a widow?A widower? Maybe, but I know at some point while in office he was married to Elenor Roosevelt.

[SoulManX]

A widower? Maybe, but I know at some point while in office he was married to Elenor Roosevelt.

Who was his cousin:csad:

[raybia]

A widower? Maybe, but I know at some point while in office he was married to Elenor Roosevelt.

Yeah widower. Damn there goes my "smart poster" status. :csad:


It was a great point you made though.

Many historians think that it was T.V. that help JFK to beat Nixon.

[bunk]

Clinton and Obama have the money to go all the way. I hate Clinton and presto! Obama supporter. It doesn't hurt that agree with almost everything I hear him say.

[Steve Rogers]

Who was his cousin:csad:Yeah, I always wondered if the American public knew about that way back in the day.

[SoulManX]

Yeah, I always wondered if the American public knew about that way back in the day.

Well Rudy did the same so...

[The Incredible Hulk]

Also wasn't FDR a widow?

No he died in 1945, eleanor died in the early 1960's

Who was his cousin:csad:

she was like his 5th cousin twice removed or something like that. When you think about it, most people dont even know their 3rd cousins...

[Steve Rogers]

Also wasn't FDR a widower?Yeah widower. Damn there goes my "smart poster" status. :csad:


It was a great point you made though.

Many historians think that it was T.V. that help JFK to beat Nixon.I see nothing to suggest that you loose your status :up:

Oh yeah, JFK totally worked the television cameras. I mean, Regan got elected. Makes me wonder if his Hollywood background was a plus for him to deleiver great performances on camera.

[Steve Rogers]

Well Rudy did the same so...Married his cousin? I did not know that.

[raybia]

she was like his 5th cousin twice removed or something like that. When you think about it, most people dont even know their 3rd cousins...

Well its one thing to marry your cousin but what if the public knew about those politicians who HAD their cousins.

[lazur]

Married his cousin? I did not know that.

Umm, fifth cousins, once removed. Which means virtually unrelated. They were both descendants of a family from the 1640's.

Anyone whose ancestors originated in this country back during the same time period could marry a 'cousin' today and probably never realize it.

[Asteroid-Man]

Why do you support him? Really, I want to know. This entire Obama craze has been totally lost on me and I am curious as to what the appeal is. In all honesty, I also wonder, how many Obama supporters will come out and say they are voting for him on the grounds of him being black? (which I consider that just as bad as not voting for him on the grounds of his being black.) I ask because it seems he has taken a substantial lead in Iowa and it seems to that he lacks any kind of platform (sure, he will give vague ideas, but has never given a practical way to fund or carry out these grand schemes of his). He has no experience outside of 3 years in national politics, so that seems to me to be the equivilant of handing the reigns of a fortune 500 company to a CEO who has spent a few years in marketing. I can give a list of reasons why I support Richardson...I really wonder how many Obama voters can do the same (without using words like "He is fresh blood" or "He's an honest respectable guy....I know even though I've never met him"...y'know, using pseudo-reasons to cover up the fact that they are voting for him to show how 'liberal' they are)?

Note: I am not saying all Obama supporters are voting for him because he is charasmatic or black or trendy. I am simply asking to know why most people are supporting him.
Why? He's charismatic, black and trendy. Oh and Obama Vs./On Osama sounds cool :woot:

What I've bolded is what you spelled wrong :o

[Sincere]

We aren't getting a Reagan or a Bill Clinton in this election, lazur. Closest thing we've got in terms of experience and ability to get the right things done is Richardson and he's fat, Mexican and ugly so there's no way he's getting elected.

jag


Give me a break. Richardson being a mexican has nothing to do with his low polling. Mexicans are much more assimilated than blacks. Look at their interracial marriage stats. Quit playing the race card. He is fat and ugly though.

[Steve Rogers]

Umm, fifth cousins, once removed. Which means virtually unrelated. They were both descendants of a family from the 1640's.

Anyone whose ancestors originated in this country back during the same time period could marry a 'cousin' today and probably never realize it.I didn't realize there were Italians here in the 1640's. Thought it was only Spanish, Dutch and English settlers that early.

[Steve Rogers]

Give me a break. Richardson being a mexican has nothing to do with his low polling. Mexicans are much more assimilated than blacks. Look at their interracial marriage stats. Quit playing the race card. He is fat and ugly though.
Does white middle America hate blacks and feel threatened by their ever increasing numbers in their own backyards?

[Soundwave]

After every Democratic debate I come away thinking that Richardson would be the best man for the job, but I can see why Obama has a lot of support. He knows how to win over a crowd.

[Sincere]

Why do you support him? Really, I want to know. This entire Obama craze has been totally lost on me and I am curious as to what the appeal is. In all honesty, I also wonder, how many Obama supporters will come out and say they are voting for him on the grounds of him being black? (which I consider that just as bad as not voting for him on the grounds of his being black.) I ask because it seems he has taken a substantial lead in Iowa and it seems to that he lacks any kind of platform (sure, he will give vague ideas, but has never given a practical way to fund or carry out these grand schemes of his). He has no experience outside of 3 years in national politics, so that seems to me to be the equivilant of handing the reigns of a fortune 500 company to a CEO who has spent a few years in marketing. I can give a list of reasons why I support Richardson...I really wonder how many Obama voters can do the same (without using words like "He is fresh blood" or "He's an honest respectable guy....I know even though I've never met him"...y'know, using pseudo-reasons to cover up the fact that they are voting for him to show how 'liberal' they are)?

Note: I am not saying all Obama supporters are voting for him because he is charasmatic or black or trendy. I am simply asking to know why most people are supporting him.

The funny thing is only Obamas detractors bring up race. His supporters never even mention it. Your theory about people voting for Obama is retarded. If people didnt want to appear racist, they would vote for someone else, but praise Obama in public. His supporters are voting and praising his name in public which says something.

[Warhammer]

Charisma and "likability" go a long way with voters. See Kennedy vs. Nixon or even Bush vs. Gore. It also helps that Obama seems to be the "trendy" especially with people like Oprah backing him. On the other side, Hillary even with more experience than Obama has 0 charisma or likability.

Yep, who's to say that Nixon would not have handled things better than Kennedy did during his term? Because of his appearance in the debate, he ended up losing. That is the biggest reason why I understand why Obama is winning, his charisma.

[raybia]

Does white middle America hate blacks and feel threatened by their ever increasing numbers in their own backyards?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that white middle America has grow accustom to black and tolerates them. Now the Mexicans? Well thats another story...though they do love the cuisine.

[jaguarr]

Give me a break. Richardson being a mexican has nothing to do with his low polling. Mexicans are much more assimilated than blacks. Look at their interracial marriage stats. Quit playing the race card. He is fat and ugly though.

That must be why we've had all this talk about building a wall at our border with Africa to keep all black people out. :dry:

jag

[Warhammer]

Damn. :o

[raybia]

That must be why we've had all this talk about building a wall at our border with Africa to keep all black people out. :dry:

jag

Damn no one does sarcasm better than jag.

[Steve Rogers]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that white middle America has grow accustom to black and tolerates them. Now the Mexicans? Well thats another story...though they do love the cuisine.
Which is the point I was making. While there is a rift between black and white in this country, we all, African and European Americans, can unite under the moniker "American" while Mexicans are invading outsiders.

[Sincere]

Does white middle America hate blacks and feel threatened by their ever increasing numbers in their own backyards?

White middle America has hated us for along time, but we still managed to get things done so dont give me that. And where are all of these white Mexican hating racist? Every white person I know says "Oh those Mexicans are so hard working". Are Mexicans being lynched, or beaten in the streets? Statisticly speaking most whites have to have some sort of relationship with hispanics through marriage. I just dont see all of this "whtie racist hatred" against Mexicans like liberals claim.

[Steve Rogers]

White middle America has hated us for along time, but we still managed to get things done so dont give me that. And where are all of these white Mexican hating racist? Every white person I know says "Oh those Mexicans are so hard working". Are Mexicans being lynched, or beaten in the streets? Statisticly speaking most whites have to have some sort of relationship with hispanics through marriage. I just dont see all of this "whtie racist hatred" against Mexicans like liberals claim.Because it's not a race thing. It's a foreign thing. Mexicans are like the Irish of the late 19th century. And if you want to see it, take a trip to the border sometime. Hell, listen to the politicians talk about closing the border. They don't talk about closing the border with Canada.

[Sincere]

That must be why we've had all this talk about building a wall at our border with Africa to keep all black people out. :dry:

jag

Wha the hell are you talking about? Africa and America is seperated by a vast ocean. Their is no reason for them to build any sort of barrier. I dont have anything against people trying to find work, but why is that our responsibility. Mexicans should march in their streets, and protest their corrupt goverment just as we did in the 50's.

[Warhammer]

Wha the hell are you talking about? Africa and America is seperated by a vast ocean. Their is no reason for them to build any sort of barrier. I dont have anything against people trying to find work, but why is that our responsibility. Mexicans should march in their streets, and protest their corrupt goverment just as we did in the 50's.

Sarcasm, man. Sarcasm.

[Steve Rogers]

Mexicans should march in their streets, and protest their corrupt goverment just as we did in the 50's.

White middle America has hated us for along time,

So...er....um...huh? Which we is you?

[Sincere]

Because it's not a race thing. It's a foreign thing. Mexicans are like the Irish of the late 19th century. And if you want to see it, take a trip to the border sometime. Hell, listen to the politicians talk about closing the border. They don't talk about closing the border with Canada.

Because Canada has a working goverment and produces professional citizens. Canadians would not want to come here in the first place. Mexico is a corrupt country, where gangs control cities, and everything has a price. They also suffer from high poverty, and low literacy rates. If you want to add someone to your team, than you should strive for the best.

[Sincere]

So...er....um...huh? Which we is you?

Im black

[jaguarr]

Because Canada has a working goverment and produces professional citizens. Canadians would not want to come here in the first place. Mexico is a corrupt country, where gangs control cities, and everything has a price. They also suffer from high poverty, and low literacy rates. If you want to add someone to your team, than you should strive for the best.

Wow. Strong stereotyping and racism.

jag

[Sincere]

Sarcasm, man. Sarcasm.

He wasnt making any sense. He should have said Canada, but he would be wrong even then.

[Steve Rogers]

Because Canada has a working goverment and produces professional citizens. Canadians would not want to come here in the first place. Mexico is a corrupt country, where gangs control cities, and everything has a price. They also suffer from high poverty, and low literacy rates. If you want to add someone to your team, than you should strive for the best.
So you are saying that white americans have no problem with a nationality of corrupt, lazy, poor, ignorant gang bangers? I have to disagree.

Oh, but us I thought you meant you were Mexican and then by we I thought you meant you were American. That's why I got confused.

[Warhammer]

He wasnt making any sense. He should have said Canada, but he would be wrong even then.

Damn, son. :csad:

[raybia]

Wha the hell are you talking about? Africa and America is seperated by a vast ocean. Their is no reason for them to build any sort of barrier.

Unfortunately no one can be told what the Matrix is.

[Varient]

................

ouch and Damn.


Good thing you guys are all friends.

[Sincere]

Wow. Strong stereotyping and racism.

jag

Thats all you got? Calling me racist. Maybe I was a bit harsh, but let's be real. The Canadian goverment has their **** together for the most part, the Mexican goverment does not. Or do you think it's normal for a countries citizens to flee in the millions for a low paying job? The Mexican citizens with good jobs,education,ect stay in there. The low skilled one's come here.

[Kelly]

Because Canada has a working goverment and produces professional citizens. Canadians would not want to come here in the first place. Mexico is a corrupt country, where gangs control cities, and everything has a price. They also suffer from high poverty, and low literacy rates. If you want to add someone to your team, than you should strive for the best.


A. Mexico
B. Canada


ummmmmmm......................is their a "C" choice please....

Thank You!

[jaguarr]

Thats all you got? Calling me racist. Maybe I was a bit harsh, but let's be real. The Canadian goverment has their **** together for the most part, the Mexican goverment does not. Or do you think it's normal for a countries citizens to flee in the millions for a low paying job? The Mexican citizens with good jobs,education,ect stay in there. The low skilled one's come here.

I'm not the one buying lock, stock and barrel into stereotypes (that are either exaggerated or unfounded) about Mexican people. You are.

jag

[Steve Rogers]

I'm not the one buying lock, stock and barrel into stereotypes (that are either exaggerated or unfounded) about Mexican people. You are.

jagThat's all you got? Calling him a racist?

Pretty sad that he doesn't take offense to that. Apparently there are worse things than being racist. Shame on you for nit picking, Jag. :whatever:

[jaguarr]

That's all you got? Calling him a racist?

Pretty sad that he doesn't take offense to that. Apparently there are worse things than being racist. Shame on you for nit picking, Jag. :whatever:

I just find it interesting that people will buy into stereotypes that are clearly exaggerated and haven't even been investigated by themselves and then condemn an entire race of people for that. Especially since migrant workers don't even vote. What we're really talking about here is people of Mexican-American heritage or legal citizenship who CAN vote who take a lot of offense to how their race is being regarded by the people in power and have about had enough of it. I suspect we'll see some record Latino turnouts at the polls this year. It's also quite sad to me that there is a very large number of people who will immediately overlook a candidate like Richardson, who is more qualified than anyone else in the race, for the primary reason that he is of Mexican descent. And if you don't think that's happening then you need to just pipe down and keep sucking on your feeding tube. :matrixreference:

jag

[Sincere]

I'm not the one buying lock, stock and barrel into stereotypes (that are either exaggerated or unfounded) about Mexican people. You are.

jag

You must be (liberal) joking. Are you saying that corruption is not a huge problem in Mexico that their own citizens will admit to? Do I have to post the thousands of articles from both American, and Mexican citizens? Do I need to post the stories of corrupt cops kidnapping American citizens and bringing them to Mexico. Do I need to post stories of the horrors being commited in border towns across the US? Or maybe the female homicides of Juarez where hundreds of young Mexican women have been found mutilated. I believe in helping people, but they have to want to help themselves. The Mexican goverment has not gone after the drug cartels hard enough, and would rather send their citizens here to take jobs, than start any kind of social programs. I will respect their goverment when it respects the citizens.

[raybia]

I just find it interesting that people will buy into stereotypes that are clearly exaggerated and haven't even been investigated by themselves and then condemn an entire race of people for that. Especially since migrant workers don't even vote. What we're really talking about here is people of Mexican-American heritage or legal citizenship who CAN vote who take a lot of offense to how their race is being regarded by the people in power and have about had enough of it. I suspect we'll see some record Latino turnouts at the polls this year. It's also quite sad to me that there is a very large number of people who will immediately overlook a candidate like Richardson, who is more qualified than anyone else in the race, for the primary reason that he is of Mexican descent. And if you don't think that's happening then you need to just pipe down and keep sucking on your feeding tube. :matrixreference:

jag

Yes!. I was about to blow off your comments until I saw that.

Good job!

[Steve Rogers]

I just find it interesting that people will buy into stereotypes that are clearly exaggerated and haven't even been investigated by themselves and then condemn an entire race of people for that. Especially since migrant workers don't even vote. What we're really talking about here is people of Mexican-American heritage or legal citizenship who CAN vote who take a lot of offense to how their race is being regarded by the people in power and have about had enough of it. I suspect we'll see some record Latino turnouts at the polls this year. It's also quite sad to me that there is a very large number of people who will immediately overlook a candidate like Richardson, who is more qualified than anyone else in the race, for the primary reason that he is of Mexican descent. And if you don't think that's happening then you need to just pipe down and keep sucking on your feeding tube. :matrixreference:

jagWell isn't that racism in a nutshell?

Intersting side note, and Sincere might not agree here, but the issues with Mexicans are not race related. I recently moved to New Mexico where Hispanics are the majority. They. Hate. Mexicans. More than anyone. It's us (Americans) versus them (Mexicans). It's not as white versus brown as some people would like to think it is. But because of sterotypes, a lot of white Americans will hear the word "Mexican" and think what they will about an American born man who has much white blood in him as Mexican blood.

[Kelly]

You must be (liberal) joking. Are you saying that corruption is not a huge problem in Mexico that their own citizens will admit to? Do I have to post the thousands of articles from both American, and Mexican citizens? Do I need to post the stories of corrupt cops kidnapping American citizens and bringing them to Mexico. Do I need to post stories of the horrors being commited in border towns across the US? Or maybe the female homicides of Juarez where hundreds of young Mexican women have been found mutilated. I believe in helping people, but they have to want to help themselves. The Mexican goverment has not gone after the drug cartels hard enough, and would rather send their citizens here to take jobs, than start any kind of social programs. I will respect their goverment when it respects the citizens.


Ooooooh your talking about the Mexican government..........damn, and I thought you were talking about those "in general" lazy Mexicans.....:whatever:


Because Canada has a working goverment and produces professional citizens. Canadians would not want to come here in the first place. Mexico is a corrupt country, where gangs control cities, and everything has a price. They also suffer from high poverty, and low literacy rates. If you want to add someone to your team, than you should strive for the best.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, looking for Mexican government........

Well, still missing it..........

[jaguarr]

You must be (liberal) joking. Are you saying that corruption is not a huge problem in Mexico that their own citizens will admit to? Do I have to post the thousands of articles from both American, and Mexican citizens? Do I need to post the stories of corrupt cops kidnapping American citizens and bringing them to Mexico. Do I need to post stories of the horrors being commited in border towns across the US? Or maybe the female homicides of Juarez where hundreds of young Mexican women have been found mutilated. I believe in helping people, but they have to want to help themselves. The Mexican goverment has not gone after the drug cartels hard enough, and would rather send their citizens here to take jobs, than start any kind of social programs. I will respect their goverment when it respects the citizens.

What part of all of that not being the NORM in Mexico, but the NEWS which is sensationalized just as bad as it is here in the states, doesn't quite sink in for you? Have you ever even been to Mexico? I have. I'm not saying that those things don't exist, but they are not the norm for the majority of the country. Not by a long shot. Do you even know any Mexicans? And are you suggesting that the U.S. doesn't have high levels of corruption itself? And all that aside, it's just too bad you don't have a heritage where you could appreciate the struggles of a minority people against an oppressive culture and government. :dry:

jag

[jaguarr]

Well isn't that racism in a nutshell?

Intersting side note, and Sincere might not agree here, but the issues with Mexicans are not race related. I recently moved to New Mexico where Hispanics are the majority. They. Hate. Mexicans. More than anyone. It's us (Americans) versus them (Mexicans). It's not as white versus brown as some people would like to think it is. But because of sterotypes, a lot of white Americans will hear the word "Mexican" and think what they will about an American born man who has much white blood in him as Mexican blood.

A lot of those Hispanics also resent the hell out of those white Americans that stereotype them for their race, and a lot of those white Americans that do that are a-holes with House and Senate seats, unfortunately.

jag

[raybia]

Ooooooh your talking about the Mexican government..........damn, and I thought you were talking about those "in general" lazy Mexicans.....:whatever:




Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, looking for Mexican government........

Well, still missing it..........


Yeah, Mexican government officials are notorious for their laziness.

Thank God that we don't have that problem in the U.S.

[Kelly]

Yeah, Mexican government officials are notorious for their laziness.

Thank God that we don't have that problem in the U.S.

Damn right.........:hehe:


*sighs*

[bored]

All our officials are busy doing blow and meeting the help in the restroom.

[Steve Rogers]

A lot of those Hispanics also resent the hell out of those white Americans that stereotype them for their race
jag
Who can blame them? Racism breeds more racism. It's a never-ending cycle that will go round and round possibly forever.

[raybia]

All our officials are busy doing blow and meeting the help in the restroom.

Well at least they are busy unlike those lazy Mexican government officials!:cmad:

Plus I've heard that blow may actually help to cure male pattern baldness...in small quantities.

[Matt]

Well, the thing with Obama is that he IS charismatic and he does give people hope for some change, which they are really wanting right now. His policies aren't very well fleshed out, I agree. However, he hasn't said anything that's really turned me OFF of his policies, either, which most of the candidates have managed to do at one point or another. I'm an independent voter myself and, frankly, I'm not really happy with this crop of candidates we have to choose from. All the Republicans are dirty, dirty, dirty and will continue Bushco business as usual. The Dem's....well, Hillary is just as bad as any Bushie and Obama hasn't really nailed down his platforms. Richardson is the only one I'd vote for, to be honest, but he'll never get the shot at the big chair.

jag

The thing is..thats what makes me feel he is insincere. Practically everything he says comes off as just playing to the masses and telling them what they want to hear.

And for the record, I don't "hate" Obama. I see him as insincere and a bit of a hypocrite. BUt the main reason I won't vote for him (I will vote for 3 of the main 4 Republicans before him, though chances are I would write in Michael Bloomberg first, if he doesn't run as an independent) is because he lacks any kind of credentials to be president. He really had no business seeking the office this early in his career and I forsee him becoming the puppet ruler of Nancy Pelosi should he win the office because of that inexperience..

[Sincere]

What part of all of that not being the NORM in Mexico, but the NEWS which is sensationalized just as bad as it is here in the states, doesn't quite sink in for you? Have you ever even been to Mexico? I have. I'm not saying that those things don't exist, but they are not the norm for the majority of the country. Not by a long shot. Do you even know any Mexicans? And are you suggesting that the U.S. doesn't have high levels of corruption itself? And all that aside, it's just too bad you don't have a heritage where you could appreciate the struggles of a minority people against an oppressive culture and government. :dry:

jag

You know thats not right. If their country didnt have those problems than their citizens would not risk life and limb to get here. Yes I have been to Mexico, and yes I know Mexicans but that doesent matter. I am well aware of the US goverments corrupt actions but, two wrongs dont make a right. Thats my whole point. Their country is oppressing them not us. I dont see what's so brave about protesting in American streets for things you are not legally entitled to. If they did that in their own county they would be gunned down. The Mexican people need to stop abandoning their country and stand up to their goverment. To compare the "undocumented workers" plight to the Civil Rights Movement is an insult. With that said I am glad that we are able to provide people with jobs, and a chance at a better life. But im tired of liberals acting like America is obligated to do that.

[jaguarr]

You know thats not right. If their country didnt have those problems than their citizens would not risk life and limb to get here. Yes I have been to Mexico, and yes I know Mexicans but that doesent matter. I am well aware of the US goverments corrupt actions but, two wrongs dont make a right. Thats my whole point. Their country is oppressing them not us. I dont see what's so brave about protesting in American streets for things you are not legally entitled to. If they did that in their own county they would be gunned down. The Mexican people need to stop abandoning their country and stand up to their goverment. To compare the "undocumented workers" plight to the Civil Rights Movement is an insult. With that said I am glad that we are able to provide people with jobs, and a chance at a better life. But im tired of liberals acting like America is obligated to do that.

I think you've managed to miss the point of every one of my posts in this thread. Congratulations. :up:

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

Note: I am not saying all Obama supporters are voting for him because he is charasmatic or black or trendy. I am simply asking to know why most people are supporting him.

simply put?
some people are voting for legitimate reasons, but for the most part people will vote for a candidate because he is charismatic or trendy, why?
because it's human nature, and most people won't really care about politics for 3 years and ten months and it takes effort and interest to really learn about a candidate.
why do you think Kerry Lost despite Bush's obvious incompetence, I remember Wilhelm posting about an old lady that elected Bush because he already had his "feet wet" ( yeah, freaky memory I know :csad:) so, really what else can people go on, except for charisma.
also, regardless of what the candidates stand for while campaigning this will change when they are elected.
I mean, just look at Bush jr.

[Mr Sparkle]

What part of all of that not being the NORM in Mexico, but the NEWS which is sensationalized just as bad as it is here in the states, doesn't quite sink in for you? Have you ever even been to Mexico? I have. I'm not saying that those things don't exist, but they are not the norm for the majority of the country. Not by a long shot. Do you even know any Mexicans? And are you suggesting that the U.S. doesn't have high levels of corruption itself? And all that aside, it's just too bad you don't have a heritage where you could appreciate the struggles of a minority people against an oppressive culture and government. :dry:

jag

how the hell did Mexico get into this?
Meh, there's **** happening everywhere, but yeah, It's not as safe as it used to be in Mexico.
but that really has more to do with economic problems than corruption, the corruption is deeply rooted but it can be changed, the mentality of Mexican people needs to change, more so than it's government.
I'm pretty sure this had to do with illegals or some ****, but, again, I have to tell whoever brought this on to the discussion that economists analyzed the impact of Illegal immigration on the US and the economy was favorably affected by 1%.
so, let's start talking about something that matters. seriously.
I'm tired as a tourist to have to jump through hoops just to go stimulate your economy, so yeah, build a wall, build 5 walls with alligators and motes and robot alligators with portable motes.
seriously, look at your country, far greater problems are there to be fixed.

[jaguarr]

how the hell did Mexico get into this?


Someone had the silly notion that there was no way people would NOT vote for Richardson because he's Hispanic, severely underestimating the ability of people to wallow in bigotry. From there, it got steered completely off course into an irrelevant discussion about Mexican immigrants. And now you know.

jag

[Sincere]

Someone had the silly notion that there was no way people would NOT vote for Richardson because he's Hispanic, severely underestimating the ability of people to wallow in bigotry. From there, it got steered completely off course into an irrelevant discussion about Mexican immigrants. And now you know.

jag

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. I never said they wouldnt. I know there are plenty of people who "Would never vote for a sp1c", but there are even more who would "Never vote for a n1gger". Blacks are the least liked group in America. Not only do we have to deal with whites, but Asians and Hispanics as well. If Barrack Huessein Obama can get through that, than so can Bill Richardson. The American people do not like his views/ideas accept it, and stop playing the race card.

[Steve Rogers]

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. I never said they wouldnt.Who said he was referring to you?

[terry78]

I don't see a lot of asians supporting Michelle Malkin because she's filipino, either...mostly because she's an annoying crone that says whatever moronic thought breeds itself in her skull.

[jaguarr]

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. I never said they wouldnt. I know there are plenty of people who "Would never vote for a sp1c", but there are even more who would "Never vote for a n1gger". Blacks are the least liked group in America. Not only do we have to deal with whites, but Asians and Hispanics as well. If Barrack Huessein Obama can get through that, than so can Bill Richardson. The American people do not like his views/ideas accept it, and stop playing the race card.

:irony:

jag

[jaguarr]

By the way, the American people haven't even HEARD Richardson's views and political expertise because they've been too busy having the "beautiful people" shoved down their throat by the media who have been pimping Obama, Hillary, Rudy and Romney like their next meal depended on it. An overweight, homely, understated Latino guy isn't glamorous enough for them to give a lot of airtime to.

jag

[Kelly]

Truth...

[terry78]

A hot candidate for anything will always garner attention. Or at least one that's not obese and slug-like.

[Handsome Rob]

Our culture has been conditioned to vote for whoever is "popular" with the media rather than for the people who are most qualified to do the job at hand. As long as our country continues to run it's politics like a high school class election, we'll forever be in a tailspin.

jag

I completely agree with you. I'm sick of the superficial way in which campaigns are being showcased by the media.

I went to The Drudge Report, as I do every morning (I hit my local newspaper online, Drudge, FoxNews, and CNN), and I was greeted with perhaps the most unflattering picture of Sen. Clinton that I have ever seen. I was disgusted--not with her, but with the fact that the picture was up there with no "link." In other words, no story--just a bad photo. Sometime while I was at work, though, they linked a story to it.

But, what was the point of that? What does a bad photo have to do with Sen. Clinton's ability to be President? Don't get me wrong--I'm a staunch, traditional conservative, and Sen. Clinton will not get my vote. I am really, really not a fan of hers. Still, it just made me sick to see a superficial attack on her. If you want to go after her, go after her because of her platform, not because of her wrinkles. :cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad:

[Arkady Rossovich]

Why do you support him? Really, I want to know. This entire Obama craze has been totally lost on me and I am curious as to what the appeal is. In all honesty, I also wonder, how many Obama supporters will come out and say they are voting for him on the grounds of him being black?

I know,i don't think Obama has any experience.But he is a fresh face,but when it comes down to it.I don't think he will last,sad to say..i truely think most are voting for him simply because he is black.More like for the Africans,this is a dream come true.Someone for them,vote for a black.Even if he's not the best choice for President.

[Kelly]

I know,i don't think Obama has any experience.But he is a fresh face,but when it comes down to it.I don't think he will last,sad to say..i truely think most are voting for him simply because he is black.More like for the Africans,this is a dream come true.Someone for them,vote for a black.Even if he's not the best choice for President.


Alan Keyes wished that was true back in 1996 and 2000, apparently that didn't work out for him....

[SoulManX]

Alan Keyes wished that was true back in 1996 and 2000, apparently that didn't work out for him....

But Keyes comes off like a prick:o

[Steve Rogers]

That Raven again in your av Soulman?

[Excel]

Lets examine our past few presidents.

BUSH-old white guy who lied to us and made the US, White House, and Presidential job look like a joke.

CLINTON-old white guy who famously lied to us and made the U.S., White House, and Presidential Job looks like a joke.

BUSH- old white guy

REAGAN: old white guy who, while extremely popular than, hes become some what of a joke as a president since

CARTER: old white guy

FORD: old white guy

NIXON: old white guy

Clinton had charisma but it was different than Obamas. Obamas is serious but hopeful; Bill was more charming/sleazy.

It aint just charisma, Obama comes off very idealistic and DIFFERENT and thats whatr people want, somethign different. It isnt just what he says and it has nothing to do with his track record; hes a YOUNG BLACK GUY.

Hes the definition of DIFFERENT when it comes the president and the candidates, that is how he is so instantly popular.

[deemar325]

Why do you support him? Really, I want to know. This entire Obama craze has been totally lost on me and I am curious as to what the appeal is. In all honesty, I also wonder, how many Obama supporters will come out and say they are voting for him on the grounds of him being black? (which I consider that just as bad as not voting for him on the grounds of his being black.) I ask because it seems he has taken a substantial lead in Iowa and it seems to that he lacks any kind of platform (sure, he will give vague ideas, but has never given a practical way to fund or carry out these grand schemes of his). He has no experience outside of 3 years in national politics, so that seems to me to be the equivilant of handing the reigns of a fortune 500 company to a CEO who has spent a few years in marketing. I can give a list of reasons why I support Richardson...I really wonder how many Obama voters can do the same (without using words like "He is fresh blood" or "He's an honest respectable guy....I know even though I've never met him"...y'know, using pseudo-reasons to cover up the fact that they are voting for him to show how 'liberal' they are)?

Note: I am not saying all Obama supporters are voting for him because he is charasmatic or black or trendy. I am simply asking to know why most people are supporting him.


BECAUSE HE'S BLACK

[raybia]

By the way, the American people haven't even HEARD Richardson's views and political expertise because they've been too busy having the "beautiful people" shoved down their throat by the media who have been pimping Obama, Hillary, Rudy and Romney like their next meal depended on it. An overweight, homely, understated Latino guy isn't glamorous enough for them to give a lot of airtime to.

jag

I'm sorry jag. You're my main man but I have to disagree with you on this one.

Rudy is not one of these "beautiful people."