Jump to content

ACORN at it again.


Guest 2smart4u

Recommended Posts

Guest 2smart4u

When is our democratic congress going to cut off the millions of dollars being funneled to this criminal enterprise named ACORN? They're being investigated in 12 states for election fraud, intimidating voters at polls in a number of states and stealing funds.

Now they've been recorded advising a pimp and prostitute how to bring in underage girls from South America, how to set up a brothel, how to avoid paying taxes on the brothel and how to register the girls as "dependents".

Considering this is a racist organization with origins in Chicago, and the annointed one is also from Chicago, my guess is this will be swept under the rug and ACORN will continue to receive millions of taxpayer dollars.

With 33 secret Czars and ACORN being paid taxpayer dollars, can I get any leftist on KOTW to finally admit something smells rotten in the White House?

Link to post
Share on other sites
When is our democratic congress going to cut off the millions of dollars being funneled to this criminal enterprise named ACORN? They're being investigated in 12 states for election fraud, intimidating voters at polls in a number of states and stealing funds.

Now they've been recorded advising a pimp and prostitute how to bring in underage girls from South America, how to set up a brothel, how to avoid paying taxes on the brothel and how to register the girls as "dependents".

Considering this is a racist organization with origins in Chicago, and the annointed one is also from Chicago, my guess is this will be swept under the rug and ACORN will continue to receive millions of taxpayer dollars.

With 33 secret Czars and ACORN being paid taxpayer dollars, can I get any leftist on KOTW to finally admit something smells rotten in the White House?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/

Make sure you read the part about how this undercover ruse failed at other ACORN offices. Make sure you account for the fact these are LOW-LEVEL employees and ACORN has immediately addressed the issue.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...QwjR2gD9AJTJ1G0

ACORN does what they can to be proactive about problems at all of their offices. It's tough to keep tab on absolutely EVERYBODY, however. Especially when you're one of the biggest grassroots networks in the world.

That said, these are both links to recent ACORN stories. Make up your own mind.

And as for "taxpayer" dollars. I don't know about you, but I don't give ACORN any money. And, I don't think they get any of yours either. http://www.acorn.org/?id=17857

Some evidence, 2smart4u? Some evidence that taxpayers are giving ACORN millions? Stop lying!

Link to post
Share on other sites
When is our democratic congress going to cut off the millions of dollars being funneled to this criminal enterprise named ACORN? They're being investigated in 12 states for election fraud, intimidating voters at polls in a number of states and stealing funds.

Now they've been recorded advising a pimp and prostitute how to bring in underage girls from South America, how to set up a brothel, how to avoid paying taxes on the brothel and how to register the girls as "dependents".

Considering this is a racist organization with origins in Chicago, and the annointed one is also from Chicago, my guess is this will be swept under the rug and ACORN will continue to receive millions of taxpayer dollars.

With 33 secret Czars and ACORN being paid taxpayer dollars, can I get any leftist on KOTW to finally admit something smells rotten in the White House?

What they did was wrong and they are being dealt with appropriately. THE WHITE HOUSE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! It would be like blaming the white house for your being a dick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/

Make sure you read the part about how this undercover ruse failed at other ACORN offices. Make sure you account for the fact these are LOW-LEVEL employees and ACORN has immediately addressed the issue.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...QwjR2gD9AJTJ1G0

ACORN does what they can to be proactive about problems at all of their offices. It's tough to keep tab on absolutely EVERYBODY, however. Especially when you're one of the biggest grassroots networks in the world.

That said, these are both links to recent ACORN stories. Make up your own mind.

And as for "taxpayer" dollars. I don't know about you, but I don't give ACORN any money. And, I don't think they get any of yours either. http://www.acorn.org/?id=17857

Some evidence, 2smart4u? Some evidence that taxpayers are giving ACORN millions? Stop lying!

We all give to ACORN since our so called leaders see fit to give these misfits our money.

The fact that some ACORN offices did not welcome giving our tax monies away to finance a whore house is not the problem. The problem is that any office of any such so called grass roots network would ever do so.

I voted for President Obama. After seeing who and what he really considers to be his agents of change I'm disappointed with my choice.

Congress should call for for an investigation of ACORN and any further so called Czars should be investigated by the FBI.

That guy yelling that Obama is a liar was wrong. Obama knows that all the illegal aliens will enjoy whatever health care law is passed. He is a lawyer and the law says they get it. The Republicans should have told the country that fact in their rebutal.

Until the next presidental election we will just have to bear up to the democratic waste which is called change. I'm sorry for my mistaken vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
"The waiting is the hardest part."

Like I've said previously, "white guilt" put this leftist community organizer in office. And the proof is simple, if this guy was a white first-time senator with no management background, held no previous elected office, went to a church for 20 years that had a racist radical minister, associated with former radical domestic terrorists and professed his radical far left agenda, he would NEVER had gotten a second look. There is just no question about this.

The democrats, who continue to delude themselves into thinking they are somehow smarter because of the levers they pull in the voting booth, will never recover from this historic blunder of voting with their sense of guilt instead of their brains? to put this abject empty suit into office.

This country make take decades to recover from the damage created by Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Co. and the 33 unvetted Czars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I've said previously, "white guilt" put this leftist community organizer in office. And the proof is simple, if this guy was a white first-time senator with no management background, held no previous elected office, went to a church for 20 years that had a racist radical minister, associated with former radical domestic terrorists and professed his radical far left agenda, he would NEVER had gotten a second look. There is just no question about this.

The democrats, who continue to delude themselves into thinking they are somehow smarter because of the levers they pull in the voting booth, will never recover from this historic blunder of voting with their sense of guilt instead of their brains? to put this abject empty suit into office.

This country make take decades to recover from the damage created by Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Co. and the 33 unvetted Czars.

Yeah, thanks for those pretty words, buddy, but this ain't a F**KING poetry contest. You have FAILED again to back up, in full, your claims from earlier in this thread. All you did here, as usual, was change the subject and toss around a bunch of flowery language that doesn't even mean anything. You speculate, you wax poetic, and you lie. FAIL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I've said previously, "white guilt" put this leftist community organizer in office. And the proof is simple, if this guy was a white first-time senator with no management background, held no previous elected office, went to a church for 20 years that had a racist radical minister, associated with former radical domestic terrorists and professed his radical far left agenda, he would NEVER had gotten a second look. There is just no question about this.

The democrats, who continue to delude themselves into thinking they are somehow smarter because of the levers they pull in the voting booth, will never recover from this historic blunder of voting with their sense of guilt instead of their brains? to put this abject empty suit into office.

This country make take decades to recover from the damage created by Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Co. and the 33 unvetted Czars.

and this country may never, ever recover from the damage done by Bush Cheney & Co.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
When is our democratic congress going to cut off the millions of dollars being funneled to this criminal enterprise named ACORN? They're being investigated in 12 states for election fraud, intimidating voters at polls in a number of states and stealing funds.

Now they've been recorded advising a pimp and prostitute how to bring in underage girls from South America, how to set up a brothel, how to avoid paying taxes on the brothel and how to register the girls as "dependents".

Considering this is a racist organization with origins in Chicago, and the annointed one is also from Chicago, my guess is this will be swept under the rug and ACORN will continue to receive millions of taxpayer dollars.

With 33 secret Czars and ACORN being paid taxpayer dollars, can I get any leftist on KOTW to finally admit something smells rotten in the White House?

Now that this is all over the internet the Senate is starting to pay attention and the Census Bureau has broken ties with them. If anyone remembers, I said last year this was a criminal organization and they should not be funded with millions of tax dollars annually.

Of course Obama will still try to protect them, after all he'll need them again in 2011 to do their election fraud and intimidation work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I've said previously, "white guilt" put this leftist community organizer in office. And the proof is simple, if this guy was a white first-time senator with no management background, held no previous elected office, went to a church for 20 years that had a racist radical minister, associated with former radical domestic terrorists and professed his radical far left agenda, he would NEVER had gotten a second look. There is just no question about this.

The democrats, who continue to delude themselves into thinking they are somehow smarter because of the levers they pull in the voting booth, will never recover from this historic blunder of voting with their sense of guilt instead of their brains? to put this abject empty suit into office.

This country make take decades to recover from the damage created by Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Co. and the 33 unvetted Czars.

Oh, come on. Obama came to national prominence with a speech at his party's national convention, much like Reagan came to prominence with a speech to his party's national convention in 1964. Obama was selected to give that speech because people saw him as an extraordinarily talented and intelligent leader with a broad vision and a gift for inspiring people - essentially the same qualities Republicans had seen in Reagan. That was his stepping-stone for a run for the White House, just as giving the Keynote address at a national convention has been a stepping stone for others, like Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and I think John Kennedy. Mario Cuomo was in a similar position in 1988 but chose not to run.

Obama then proved his mettle by beating one of the most powerful political forces in our country's history, the Clinton "machine". People saw him learn and grow during the campaign, and he clearly bested John McCain in their three debates. A presidential election is all about whether the people trust the candidate to lead the country. The people trusted Obama for that job more than they trusted McCain. That wasn't just my conclusion. Nearly every post-debate poll said that. Perhaps most interesting, Obama was the stable candidate, as contrasted with McCain, who could not seem to control his temper. People saw that and quite literally felt safer with a President Obama than a President McCain - especially with Sarah Palin sitting a heartbeat away from the presidency of a 72-year-old man with a history of skin cancer.

If you look at the demographics, you will clearly see that blacks voted for Obama in roughly the same percentages as blacks voted for Kerry and Gore. The Hispanic vote shifted, but that was because Republicans invited trouble with Hispanics because of their position on immigration and other issues of particular concern to Hispanic voters. In virtually every state, Obama had more support than Kerry had in 2004 or Gore in 2000. It's ludicrous to suggest, as you just did, that this had nothing to do with the economy being in a state of near collapse after eight years of mainly Republican rule. You can argue that Democrats controlled Congress in the last two of those eight years; it doesn't matter, because the people blamed the economic collapse and the war on the Republicans. That had nothing to do with Obama's race. In fact, a better case can be made that Obama would have won the election by an even greater majority if he had been white. You would have loved it if Obama had tried to play his race to political advantage, but he was too smart for that and frankly way too smart for you; it must really drive you crazy that he had the political savvy and the discipline to pull that off. Those are all hallmarks of a leader. He proved that he has them.

There is racism going on here, in the incessant raising of this issue by the radical right. The fact that you can see no other reason for the election of an African-American president but race speaks volumes about racism - yours. I can see why you refuse to reveal your identity. You have good reason to be ashamed. I'm not kidding. I'm talking to you, and I don't mind putting my name to it. Shame on you.

But of course, that's too many words for you to handle at once. And since it's all true, it's far more than you can handle in any number of words.

I can't force you to be objective about politics but you can't change reality, or in particular erase the multitude of reasons why Barack Obama won the election, by repeating your talking points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that this is all over the internet the Senate is starting to pay attention and the Census Bureau has broken ties with them. If anyone remembers, I said last year this was a criminal organization and they should not be funded with millions of tax dollars annually.

Of course Obama will still try to protect them, after all he'll need them again in 2011 to do their election fraud and intimidation work.

If it's all over the internet, then why don't you provide a link?

You just got caught lying on another topic,

just like you've gotten caught lying dozens if not hundreds of other times.

And if it is on the Internet, you're probably getting it from the same group of people who still think Obama isn't an American.

You lie. No one has any good reason to believe you.

Of course, you could prove me wrong and make me look foolish,

if what you just wrote was true.

But it isn't true.

All you ever do here is lie.

And that is a fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Oh, come on. Obama came to national prominence with a speech at his party's national convention, much like Reagan came to prominence with a speech to his party's national convention in 1964. Obama was selected to give that speech because people saw him as an extraordinarily talented and intelligent leader with a broad vision and a gift for inspiring people - essentially the same qualities Republicans had seen in Reagan. That was his stepping-stone for a run for the White House, just as giving the Keynote address at a national convention has been a stepping stone for others, like Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and I think John Kennedy. Mario Cuomo was in a similar position in 1988 but chose not to run.

Obama then proved his mettle by beating one of the most powerful political forces in our country's history, the Clinton "machine". People saw him learn and grow during the campaign, and he clearly bested John McCain in their three debates. A presidential election is all about whether the people trust the candidate to lead the country. The people trusted Obama for that job more than they trusted McCain. That wasn't just my conclusion. Nearly every post-debate poll said that. Perhaps most interesting, Obama was the stable candidate, as contrasted with McCain, who could not seem to control his temper. People saw that and quite literally felt safer with a President Obama than a President McCain - especially with Sarah Palin sitting a heartbeat away from the presidency of a 72-year-old man with a history of skin cancer.

If you look at the demographics, you will clearly see that blacks voted for Obama in roughly the same percentages as blacks voted for Kerry and Gore. The Hispanic vote shifted, but that was because Republicans invited trouble with Hispanics because of their position on immigration and other issues of particular concern to Hispanic voters. In virtually every state, Obama had more support than Kerry had in 2004 or Gore in 2000. It's ludicrous to suggest, as you just did, that this had nothing to do with the economy being in a state of near collapse after eight years of mainly Republican rule. You can argue that Democrats controlled Congress in the last two of those eight years; it doesn't matter, because the people blamed the economic collapse and the war on the Republicans. That had nothing to do with Obama's race. In fact, a better case can be made that Obama would have won the election by an even greater majority if he had been white. You would have loved it if Obama had tried to play his race to political advantage, but he was too smart for that and frankly way too smart for you; it must really drive you crazy that he had the political savvy and the discipline to pull that off. Those are all hallmarks of a leader. He proved that he has them.

There is racism going on here, in the incessant raising of this issue by the radical right. The fact that you can see no other reason for the election of an African-American president but race speaks volumes about racism - yours. I can see why you refuse to reveal your identity. You have good reason to be ashamed. I'm not kidding. I'm talking to you, and I don't mind putting my name to it. Shame on you.

But of course, that's too many words for you to handle at once. And since it's all true, it's far more than you can handle in any number of words.

I can't force you to be objective about politics but you can't change reality, or in particular erase the multitude of reasons why Barack Obama won the election, by repeating your talking points.

Amazing, you just said the reason he got the nomination and got your vote is because he's a good speaker. The fact that he had no management experience, never held public office, had minimal experience in the Senate, associated with known domestic terrorists, attended a church with a racist, radical minister had no bearing on your vote. His gift of gab and your white guilt decided for you.

Deny it all you like, you know that a white, first term senator with no management experience, no previous elected office, associated with known domestic terrorists, attended a church for 20 years with a radical, racist minister and whose previous job was a community organizer (but was a good speaker) wouldn't have a chance of getting elected.

So what's the difference between this imaginary white senator and Obama?

Come on Paul, man up. You know I'm right, being black got him elected. Anyone capable of a clear thought can see this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If it's all over the internet, then why don't you provide a link?

You just got caught lying on another topic,

just like you've gotten caught lying dozens if not hundreds of other times.

And if it is on the Internet, you're probably getting it from the same group of people who still think Obama isn't an American.

You lie. No one has any good reason to believe you.

Of course, you could prove me wrong and make me look foolish,

if what you just wrote was true.

But it isn't true.

All you ever do here is lie.

And that is a fact.

Are you living in a cave? Put the TV on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If it's all over the internet, then why don't you provide a link?

You just got caught lying on another topic, just like you've gotten caught lying dozens if not hundreds of other times.

And if it is on the Internet, you're probably getting it from the same group of people who still think Obama isn't an American.

You lie. No one has any good reason to believe you.

Of course, you could prove me wrong and make me look foolish,

if what you just wrote was true.

But it isn't true.

All you ever do here is lie.

And that is a fact.

2smart is a serial liar, but he's not lying this time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/us/politics/12acorn.html

Just because someone is guilty of some things, doesn't mean they're guilty of everything.

BTW, the giant red text is every bit as obnoxious as 2smart's multiple punctuation marks and idiotic "kool-aid" retorts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on Paul, man up. You know I'm right, being black got him elected.

It's hard to say what the net effect of his race was. For some it was a positive factor, but it also cost him some votes as well. Some appalachian voters were quite explicit about it.

In the weeks before the election, you claimed that Obama's poll numbers were driven by white guilt, and that this would translate into a win for McCain/Palin as these guilty whites would vote differently in the privacy of the polling booth than when speaking with a pollster. But that didn't happen. You're now claiming that the "white guilt" voters voted in private the same as they professed in public. You were wrong the first time, and I see no reason to think your reasoning is any better now. As the "white guilt" dip failed to materialize, and as the vote correlated pretty well with a general Democratic shift amongst the electorate (I'm sure you noticed the Democratic gains in Congress and also amongst the state governments), race most likely wasn't a significant factor either way. Like so many other of your claims, this has no substance beyond your emotional desire to believe it.

Anyone capable of a clear thought can see this.

So says the village idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Amazing, you just said the reason he got the nomination and got your vote is because he's a good speaker. The fact that he had no management experience, never held public office, had minimal experience in the Senate, associated with known domestic terrorists, attended a church with a racist, radical minister had no bearing on your vote. His gift of gab and your white guilt decided for you.

Deny it all you like, you know that a white, first term senator with no management experience, no previous elected office, associated with known domestic terrorists, attended a church for 20 years with a radical, racist minister and whose previous job was a community organizer (but was a good speaker) wouldn't have a chance of getting elected.

So what's the difference between this imaginary white senator and Obama?

Come on Paul, man up. You know I'm right, being black got him elected. Anyone capable of a clear thought can see this.

I'm still waiting for a loonie to opine on the difference between the imaginary white senator and Obama.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Former Democrat
Oh, come on. Obama came to national prominence with a speech at his party's national convention, much like Reagan came to prominence with a speech to his party's national convention in 1964. Obama was selected to give that speech because people saw him as an extraordinarily talented and intelligent leader with a broad vision and a gift for inspiring people - essentially the same qualities Republicans had seen in Reagan. That was his stepping-stone for a run for the White House, just as giving the Keynote address at a national convention has been a stepping stone for others, like Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and I think John Kennedy. Mario Cuomo was in a similar position in 1988 but chose not to run.

Obama then proved his mettle by beating one of the most powerful political forces in our country's history, the Clinton "machine". People saw him learn and grow during the campaign, and he clearly bested John McCain in their three debates. A presidential election is all about whether the people trust the candidate to lead the country. The people trusted Obama for that job more than they trusted McCain. That wasn't just my conclusion. Nearly every post-debate poll said that. Perhaps most interesting, Obama was the stable candidate, as contrasted with McCain, who could not seem to control his temper. People saw that and quite literally felt safer with a President Obama than a President McCain - especially with Sarah Palin sitting a heartbeat away from the presidency of a 72-year-old man with a history of skin cancer.

If you look at the demographics, you will clearly see that blacks voted for Obama in roughly the same percentages as blacks voted for Kerry and Gore. The Hispanic vote shifted, but that was because Republicans invited trouble with Hispanics because of their position on immigration and other issues of particular concern to Hispanic voters. In virtually every state, Obama had more support than Kerry had in 2004 or Gore in 2000. It's ludicrous to suggest, as you just did, that this had nothing to do with the economy being in a state of near collapse after eight years of mainly Republican rule. You can argue that Democrats controlled Congress in the last two of those eight years; it doesn't matter, because the people blamed the economic collapse and the war on the Republicans. That had nothing to do with Obama's race. In fact, a better case can be made that Obama would have won the election by an even greater majority if he had been white. You would have loved it if Obama had tried to play his race to political advantage, but he was too smart for that and frankly way too smart for you; it must really drive you crazy that he had the political savvy and the discipline to pull that off. Those are all hallmarks of a leader. He proved that he has them.

There is racism going on here, in the incessant raising of this issue by the radical right. The fact that you can see no other reason for the election of an African-American president but race speaks volumes about racism - yours. I can see why you refuse to reveal your identity. You have good reason to be ashamed. I'm not kidding. I'm talking to you, and I don't mind putting my name to it. Shame on you.

But of course, that's too many words for you to handle at once. And since it's all true, it's far more than you can handle in any number of words.

I can't force you to be objective about politics but you can't change reality, or in particular erase the multitude of reasons why Barack Obama won the election, by repeating your talking points.

From Paul's omnipotent lips: "Obama came to national prominence with a speech". Kind of supports what 2smart4u has been saying. He didn't rise through the ranks of the Democratic Party because of his years of excellent work in the Senate, nor did he gain prominence as a Governor who did wonderful things for his state.

No, he gained prominence because of a speech he read off a teleprompter. Well, what about the speech writer? He should have been named Secretary of State, at least.

I'm beginning to side with 2smart4u, this Obama guy did not earn the Presidency, his blackness and ability to read from a teleprompter elected him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From Paul's omnipotent lips: "Obama came to national prominence with a speech". Kind of supports what 2smart4u has been saying. He didn't rise through the ranks of the Democratic Party because of his years of excellent work in the Senate, nor did he gain prominence as a Governor who did wonderful things for his state.

No, he gained prominence because of a speech he read off a teleprompter. Well, what about the speech writer? He should have been named Secretary of State, at least.

I'm beginning to side with 2smart4u, this Obama guy did not earn the Presidency, his blackness and ability to read from a teleprompter elected him.

Truth be told....it doesn't matter. The fact is that he was elected...by both a voter majority and an electoral landslide. Thus, he certainly did earn the Presidency because he earned the votes of over 69 million people or 53% of voters. McCain would have won if more people voted for him. But they didn't.

Your side LOST. Get over it. There will be another election in 3 years. Until then, be miserable or choose to move forward with a spirit of cooperation and understanding. Losers hold onto grudges and are not taken seriously by anyone with a brain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From Paul's omnipotent lips: "Obama came to national prominence with a speech". Kind of supports what 2smart4u has been saying. He didn't rise through the ranks of the Democratic Party because of his years of excellent work in the Senate, nor did he gain prominence as a Governor who did wonderful things for his state.

No, he gained prominence because of a speech he read off a teleprompter. Well, what about the speech writer? He should have been named Secretary of State, at least.

I'm beginning to side with 2smart4u, this Obama guy did not earn the Presidency, his blackness and ability to read from a teleprompter elected him.

Funny thing, back in 2000, one of the things the Democrats were using as a negative about George W Bush, was the fact that he had no Foreign Policy Experience as Governor of Texas, yet that suddenly was no longer an issue in the 2008 Campaign. President Obama beat Hillary Clinton and their "Machine" because at the end of the day, they couldnt REALLY attack him without being branded as Racists. The only REALLY effective voice they had against him was the Rev. Manning, who went SO far over the top as to make himself irrelevant with his "Long-legged Mack Daddy" reference, and the disparaging Remarks about the now President's Mother. The other blacks that had originally been in the Clinton Camp jumped ship soon afterwards, and even though Hillary might have been married to "The First African-American President" as President Clinton had been referred to, in the end that tie wasnt strong enough. His OWN PARTY, or at least one faction therof tried to "Rev Wright" him, and failed miserably. He also had a HUGE advantage over Hillary in that she is REALLY Not a likeable person. She's Shrill, and has visibly lost her temper more than once since entering Public Life, and, let's face it, MOST people were just TIRED of the "Dynasties" People looked at her and saw "More CLinton" whereas Obama Promised "Change" even though he never really definied in what way. President Obama does REALLY well when he has a prepared Speech in front of him, he does NOT do as well when things aren't scripted, he gets flustered, he get's annoyed..all of the things we were kept from seeing in the campaign. The thing is that Someone needs to drive home the point that he's WON. It's time to stop campaigning, and start actually LEADING. The Health Care issue is screwed up because he has failed to show Leadership. It's HIS baby, it partly why he was elected, HE SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT how He wanted it. Instead he tried to insulate himself just in case it DIDNT work, and falied miserably because Congress is the place where good ideas go to Die, NOT the place where great ideas are born. If President Obama wants a Leacy with Health care, he needs to sit down, Define a COUPLE of points and reforms, then work to get those passed. once he shows that THAT works, he can expand on it. Instead he did the same thing he did with the Stimulus...Chicken Little running around saying "We need to do this Now, Now Now Now". That's what we heard in February "If this isnt passed the economy is doomed" Ok, so it was passed..and out of the Trillion Dollars, only about 4% have actually been spent, and the Infrastructure Projects that were supposed to be the backbone of the recovery aren't even Scheduled for another 4 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From Paul's omnipotent lips: "Obama came to national prominence with a speech". Kind of supports what 2smart4u has been saying. He didn't rise through the ranks of the Democratic Party because of his years of excellent work in the Senate, nor did he gain prominence as a Governor who did wonderful things for his state.

No, he gained prominence because of a speech he read off a teleprompter. Well, what about the speech writer? He should have been named Secretary of State, at least.

I'm beginning to side with 2smart4u, this Obama guy did not earn the Presidency, his blackness and ability to read from a teleprompter elected him.

Former Democrat/Current Idiot. Did you think your name would gain you some sort of extra credibility, or suggest you have a shred of open-mindedness? "I'm crossing the aisle... I ain't no sheep." You're a former democrat, but you're a current racist hysteric. You're paranoid and stupid. You really think somebody got elected with blackness? In this country? You're F**KING nuts. Next time, just get to the point. Say "Barack Obama is a dumb nigger" if that's what you're thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From Paul's omnipotent lips: "Obama came to national prominence with a speech". Kind of supports what 2smart4u has been saying. He didn't rise through the ranks of the Democratic Party because of his years of excellent work in the Senate, nor did he gain prominence as a Governor who did wonderful things for his state.

No, he gained prominence because of a speech he read off a teleprompter. Well, what about the speech writer? He should have been named Secretary of State, at least.

I'm beginning to side with 2smart4u, this Obama guy did not earn the Presidency, his blackness and ability to read from a teleprompter elected him.

It’s this kind of distortion of reality that is killing our political discourse. In addition to Obama’s excellent keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I also pointed out his

- talent

- intelligence

- vision

- gift for inspiring people

- beating a powerful opponent

- growth during the campaign

- victory in the debates against McCain

- earning the trust of the American people

- stability

- political savvy

- discipline

Instead of being honest about what I wrote, you read the first two sentences and insisted that was all I said. That’s dishonest.

Equally dishonest is the notion that Obama cannot speak extemporaneously. He speaks off-the-cuff with great intelligence and sophistication. He didn’t win those debates against McCain off a teleprompter. It was all extemporaneous. The contrast with Bush is extraordinary.

To you on the radical right, the facts do not matter. Obama brings more to the presidency than just an ability to give a speech; but that fact doesn’t fit with your political agenda so you ignore it. He became President for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with his race, but that isn’t convenient to your agenda either, so you ignore that too. Any fact that doesn’t fit with your predetermined conclusions and your political agenda, you simply ignore. No wonder the world looks so clear to you: you ignore everything that would require you to think. This isn’t just a blind spot. It is a practiced strategy. I ask you again, what kind of society do you intend to build by ignoring the facts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, come on. Obama came to national prominence with a speech at his party's national convention, much like Reagan came to prominence with a speech to his party's national convention in 1964. Obama was selected to give that speech because people saw him as an extraordinarily talented and intelligent leader with a broad vision and a gift for inspiring people - essentially the same qualities Republicans had seen in Reagan. That was his stepping-stone for a run for the White House, just as giving the Keynote address at a national convention has been a stepping stone for others, like Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and I think John Kennedy. Mario Cuomo was in a similar position in 1988 but chose not to run.

Obama then proved his mettle by beating one of the most powerful political forces in our country's history, the Clinton "machine". People saw him learn and grow during the campaign, and he clearly bested John McCain in their three debates. A presidential election is all about whether the people trust the candidate to lead the country. The people trusted Obama for that job more than they trusted McCain. That wasn't just my conclusion. Nearly every post-debate poll said that. Perhaps most interesting, Obama was the stable candidate, as contrasted with McCain, who could not seem to control his temper. People saw that and quite literally felt safer with a President Obama than a President McCain - especially with Sarah Palin sitting a heartbeat away from the presidency of a 72-year-old man with a history of skin cancer.

If you look at the demographics, you will clearly see that blacks voted for Obama in roughly the same percentages as blacks voted for Kerry and Gore. The Hispanic vote shifted, but that was because Republicans invited trouble with Hispanics because of their position on immigration and other issues of particular concern to Hispanic voters. In virtually every state, Obama had more support than Kerry had in 2004 or Gore in 2000. It's ludicrous to suggest, as you just did, that this had nothing to do with the economy being in a state of near collapse after eight years of mainly Republican rule. You can argue that Democrats controlled Congress in the last two of those eight years; it doesn't matter, because the people blamed the economic collapse and the war on the Republicans. That had nothing to do with Obama's race. In fact, a better case can be made that Obama would have won the election by an even greater majority if he had been white. You would have loved it if Obama had tried to play his race to political advantage, but he was too smart for that and frankly way too smart for you; it must really drive you crazy that he had the political savvy and the discipline to pull that off. Those are all hallmarks of a leader. He proved that he has them.

There is racism going on here, in the incessant raising of this issue by the radical right. The fact that you can see no other reason for the election of an African-American president but race speaks volumes about racism - yours. I can see why you refuse to reveal your identity. You have good reason to be ashamed. I'm not kidding. I'm talking to you, and I don't mind putting my name to it. Shame on you.

But of course, that's too many words for you to handle at once. And since it's all true, it's far more than you can handle in any number of words.

I can't force you to be objective about politics but you can't change reality, or in particular erase the multitude of reasons why Barack Obama won the election, by repeating your talking points.

That's what I wrote. If you're going to comment on it, be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...