Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A better question is whether or not you're embarassed that you didn't vote Obama? He has done more in the last 30 days (pre-election) than most do their first 30 days in office. He has demonstrated to me that he isn't afraid of opposing viewpoints and having his stance on issues challenged, he isn't afraid to roll up his sleeves and get the job done, and that he is up to the challenge.
As far as the Rod Blagovec (sp?), who cares? Just like the "Obama is a Muslim," "Obama wasn't born in the U.S.," and "Obama pals around with terrorists" arguments, you have zero proof. If this guy is as bad as you think he is, something would have leaked.
So am I embarassed? No but I bet those who voted for George W. Bush twice are embarassed. No mulligan is required because the best candidate won so get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0
For all those who helped elect a corrupt Chicago politician who seems to, along with his buddy the Illinois Governor, have taken the job to scam money for political appointments, are you embarassed by your decision yet?
The Obama administration, while promising to be forthcoming and transparent, has dodged reporters and refuses to release records regarding their involvement in the selling of our political future.
So are you embarassed yet, having fallen for the empty promises of Barack Obama? Or do you still hold out some slim sliver of hope that Barack Obama is going to follow through on any of his campaign promises?
The President-elect is showing himself for what he always was, a liar and a fraud, more interested in his own personal advancement than in improving our country. Hopefully in '12 all of you who voted for this empty suit will wake up and see that a candidate's record speaks louder than mindless rhetoric.
I would gladly look at and consider a valid source if you would like to present one. Unfortunately, the New York Times is far from unbiased or reliable.
The facts are these:
- Governor Blagojevich is accused of trying to sell Obama's seat.
Well, you got that one right
Quote:
- Obama said neither he nor his campaign had any contact with Blagojevich.
Doing Good - two for two
Quote:
- Evidence surfaces of at least incidental contact with Blagojevich regarding this issue.
Evidence? Of course he would have contact, since he is the current senator. Politicians have contact with each other all the time.
Strike 1
Quote:
- Obama promises to release any communications between his staff and the Governor.
Only when the prosecutor says he can - it is a on-going investigation.
Strike 2
Quote:
- The Obama administration fails to release any communications.
Your repeating your self. Strike 3
Quote:
- Evidence surfaces that Rahm Emanuel, president-elect Obama's chief of staff, had detailed contacts with the Blagojevich administration.
Yes, the contacts have been detailed to the prosecutor. Strike 4
Quote:
- Emanuel, either on his own initiative or through Obama, refuses to discuss the issue with the press.
Again, it is a on going investigation. Strike 5
Quote:
The facts are clear:
1. The Obama administration has information relevant to the criminal inquiry, and had some degree of involvement.
2. Despite promises to be open and transparent, the Obama administration has failed to divulge what it knew or knows.
3. When confronted with a part of this evidence, the Obama administration closed ranks and hushed up.
No, your explaination of your facts are clear, you don't like him, but he has been as up-front and transparent as he can be at the moment.
- Strike Six, you're out.
Quote:
Would you like to see some of the other promises that Obama made to get elected and is now backtracking on? There's quite an extensive list.
Im still waiting for (both) Bush's promises, Clinton's, Regan's, Nixon's, Carter's and Johnson's. So nothing is new. And on top of that he is not in the white house (yet).
George Bush wasn't qualified intellectually? As I recall, he attended Harvard and Yale, two of the most prestigious Universities in this country.
Legacy admission. Do you know what that means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0
Can you name any pro-capitalist terrorists? I can name a few anti-capitalist/pro-environment terrorists.
I can name many pro-capitalist terrorists: Dick Cheney, Grover Norquist, Tom Delay, and all the other greedy conservative warmongers who are enriching themselves by creating wars in foreign countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0
Wasn't it the Democrat candidate this election cycle who threatened coal companies with bankruptcy if they tried to build coal plants?
Absurd. This is only believed by people who are looking for factoids to smear Obama. Shallow readers and shallow thinkers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0
First of all, I do not hate John Kerry because he is a war veteran.
Then why did you insult his service and his injuries? I swear, the only people I hear directly insulting veterans' service are conservatives. Compare how Kerry's service was treated to how McCain's service was treated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0
Was it Conservatives who spit on troops returning from Vietnam?
This has been debunked forever. There are no contemporaneous accounts of it ever happening. Please don't pass on lies and misinformation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0
The left has even invented a phrase, "swift-boated," to refer to telling the truth about a candidate.
Hah! You're trying out your propaganda skills! That's pretty good. Not great - you wouldn't make it in the USSR or in Hitler's Germany, but if you keep it up ... who knows?
I can't help but wonder what prism you look at the world through to not bat an eye at the agregious acts that the Bush administration has committed, to not be bothered at all by the fact that this guy has already effectively checked out, leaving us no leadership at a time when it is desperately needed...(why no bull horn photo-op now? nothing to be gained politically at this point). But you are willing to invest in trying to bring down a guy who is willing to step up to the plate, loaded with the very real mess from the current administration.
I suggest you spend your time figuring out how you are going to put your kids through college now, and fund your retirement, keep from being upside down on your mortgage, pay for your health care...Wow those are some very serious issues with very bleak outlooks right now. I guess I can understand why you need to escape into these fantasies of Obama being the boogie man, or maybe you want to scapegoat him for the issues I have listed above...
I am just trying to make sense of your thought process....
For all those who helped elect a corrupt Chicago politician who seems to, along with his buddy the Illinois Governor, have taken the job to scam money for political appointments, are you embarassed by your decision yet?
The Obama administration, while promising to be forthcoming and transparent, has dodged reporters and refuses to release records regarding their involvement in the selling of our political future.
So are you embarassed yet, having fallen for the empty promises of Barack Obama? Or do you still hold out some slim sliver of hope that Barack Obama is going to follow through on any of his campaign promises?
The President-elect is showing himself for what he always was, a liar and a fraud, more interested in his own personal advancement than in improving our country. Hopefully in '12 all of you who voted for this empty suit will wake up and see that a candidate's record speaks louder than mindless rhetoric.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't need to wait until 2011 to "see that a candidate's record speaks louder than mindless rhetoric."
I saw that during the past long eight years of the Bush "administration". Obama would have to be in office for about 56 years to even come close to all the lies and the fraud that Bush & company has subjected us to.
Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney, has plenty of records and wiretappings. He has said the President-elect is not involved. To me, Fitzgerald has more information and credibility than you do. So, I'll take my info from his office, thank you.
Obama and the Gov of Illinois were never buddies. Also, I fail to see how the "political future" of this country would be in the hands of anybody appointed by Blagojevich. In the end, it'd just be a very junior Senator from Illinois. Whomever replaces Obama in the Senate will be told to shut up and color for at least his/her first two years in the Senate. Get a sense of proportion, please.
Hopefully that will not happen since he is ineligible to serve as President per the U.S. Constitution.
Sly Kootr/Skootr, do you realy believe this? I am not sure how to post against you anymore, since I am not sure if you are a parody. It kind of takes the fun out of it.
Give me some guidance here (or a DM)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
