Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 48

Thread: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton camps point to 'borrowed rhetoric'

  1. #31
    Elite Member *DIVA!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    15,742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    I am not here in defense of Hilary's voting record.



    So he votes not what he thinks is right, but what is good for his career



    He has taken $125,000 from lobbyists, and $1.3 Million from Pacs for his US senate bid. Your above statement is incorrect.

    The facts speak for themselves
    Barack Obama on Government Reform

    I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.” — Barack Obama
    Money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless

    Q: You've been talking a lot about lobbyists and money in politics. The Boston Globe in August reported: "In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, almost 2/3 of the money he raised for his campaigns came from political action committees, corporate contributions, unions, and many other corporate interests." You now talk about, "Well, I'm not taking any money from lobbyists." You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal employees who work for federal lobbying firms. There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it's coming from, and your rhetoric.A: I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. I have raised money in order to bankroll my campaigns. But what I have been consistent about is fighting to reduce the influence of money in politics at every level of government. I am the only candidate in this race who has really pushed hard to reduce the influence of lobbyists.
    Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 11, 2007
    No "bundled" money from federal-registered lobbyists

    Q: You have taken a firm stand against accepting money from lobbyists, yet you allow them to raise money for you and "bundle" it. What's the difference between those things?A: No, no, I do not have federal-registered lobbyists bundling for me, just like I don't take PAC money. People need to know who we are going to fight for. The reason I'm in public life, the reason that I am running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks.
    Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007
    Campaigns last too long & cost too much

    Campaigns last too long and they cost too much money. And they're disproportionately influenced by Washington insiders, which is why it's not going to be enough just to change political parties [in the presidency]. But we also have to make sure that we are mobilizing Americans across race & regions, if we're actually going to bring these changes about. Change doesn't happen from the top down, it happens from the bottom up. It's because millions of voices get mobilized and organized. Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007
    Doesn't take PAC money or federal lobbyists' money

    Q: [to Kucinich] What do you have that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do not have?KUCINICH: The new doctrine that I'm going to promote throughout this campaign is that we'll use the science of human relations and diplomacy to settle your differences without committing the young men and women to war, unless it's absolutely necessary.
    CLINTON: The issue is: Which of us is ready to lead on day one? I have 35 years of being an instrument and agent of change.
    OBAMA: I don't think this is just a Republican problem. I think this is a problem that spans the parties. And we don't just need a change in political parties in Washington. We've got to have a change in attitudes of those who are representing the people. And part of the reason I don't take PAC money, I don't take federal lobbyists' money is because we've got to get the national interests up front as opposed to the special interests. And that is something that I've got a track record doing.
    Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007
    People know his "bundlers" because he pushed disclosure law

    OBAMA: [to Gravel]: We don't just need a change in political parties in Washington. We've got to have a change in attitudes of those who are representing the people. And part of the reason I don't take PAC money, I don't take federal lobbyists' money is because we've got to get the national interests up front as opposed to the special interests.GRAVEL: Barack Obama says he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Well, he has 134 bundlers. Now, what does he think that is? And, besides that, he has received $195,000 from the head of a foreign-owned bank who has lobbyists in Washington.
    OBAMA: Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money. And the bundlers--the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that. And that's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States.
    Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007
    FactCheck: no lobbyist money; yes from bundlers who lobby

    A testy exchange between Gravel and Obama requires some clarification. Gravel claimed, "Barack Obama said he doesn't take money from lobbyists [but] he has 134 bundlers. Now, what does he think that is?" Gravel and Obama weren't actually contradicting each other. However, Obama's policy is an ethical tightrope. Obama's official policy is: "The Obama campaign does not accept donations or fundraising help from federal lobbyists or PACs." Obama, however, is sticking to a strict interpretation of his ban on lobbyist contributions.
    [The largest bundler was] Robert Wolf, COO of the Switzerland-based UBS Investment Bank, who raised money for Obama to the tune of $194,930. Those contributions don't violate the letter of Obama's pledge, even though UBS, like most large corporations, has lobbyists in Washington. Obama voluntarily listed Wolf, along with 254 other "bundlers" (influential types who agree to encourage and collect individual contributions) on his Web site.
    Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate Jul 23, 2007





    Baltimore O's ​Fan!

    I don''t know if she really fucked the board though. Maybe just put the tip in. -Mrs. Dark

  2. #32
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,488

    Default

    ^^ Your post confirms that he accepts money from PAC's and Lobbyists

    Q: You've been talking a lot about lobbyists and money in politics. The Boston Globe in August reported: "In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, almost 2/3 of the money he raised for his campaigns came from political action committees, corporate contributions, unions, and many other corporate interests." You now talk about, "Well, I'm not taking any money from lobbyists." You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal employees who work for federal lobbying firms. There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it's coming from, and your rhetoric.

    A: I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. I have raised money in order to bankroll my campaigns. But what I have been consistent about is fighting to reduce the influence of money in politics at every level of government. I am the only candidate in this race who has really pushed hard to reduce the influence of lobbyists.


    A testy exchange between Gravel and Obama requires some clarification. Gravel claimed, "Barack Obama said he doesn't take money from lobbyists [but] he has 134 bundlers. Now, what does he think that is?" Gravel and Obama weren't actually contradicting each other. However, Obama's policy is an ethical tightrope. Obama's official policy is: "The Obama campaign does not accept donations or fundraising help from federal lobbyists or PACs." Obama, however, is sticking to a strict interpretation of his ban on lobbyist contributions.
    [The largest bundler was] Robert Wolf, COO of the Switzerland-based UBS Investment Bank, who raised money for Obama to the tune of $194,930. Those contributions don't violate the letter of Obama's pledge, even though UBS, like most large corporations, has lobbyists in Washington. Obama voluntarily listed Wolf, along with 254 other "bundlers" (influential types who agree to encourage and collect individual contributions) on his Web site.

    You either take it or you don't. The rationalizations are all just more political bullshit. "oh I take it, but I fight hard to reduce the influence of lobbyists"

    He can say whatever he likes to "Meet the Press", he has taken money from lobbyists and PAC's.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  3. #33
    Elite Member *DIVA!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    15,742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    ^^ Your post confirms that he accepts money from PAC's and Lobbyists

    Q: You've been talking a lot about lobbyists and money in politics. The Boston Globe in August reported: "In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, almost 2/3 of the money he raised for his campaigns came from political action committees, corporate contributions, unions, and many other corporate interests." You now talk about, "Well, I'm not taking any money from lobbyists." You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal employees who work for federal lobbying firms. There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it's coming from, and your rhetoric.

    A: I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. I have raised money in order to bankroll my campaigns. But what I have been consistent about is fighting to reduce the influence of money in politics at every level of government. I am the only candidate in this race who has really pushed hard to reduce the influence of lobbyists.


    You either take it or you don't. The rationalizations are all just more political bullshit. "oh I take it, but I fight hard to reduce the influence of lobbyists"
    Can you read, he said he took it before, and know that it was wrong, and that is why he isn't taking it now!!!
    Baltimore O's ​Fan!

    I don''t know if she really fucked the board though. Maybe just put the tip in. -Mrs. Dark

  4. #34
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSDiva View Post
    Can you read, he said he took it before, and know that it was wrong, and that is why he isn't taking it now!!!
    Yes I can read, I can write too. Oh, and I have a Bachelor's in Political Science. Please don't be insulting.

    No where in your post do I see him say I no longer take this money.

    What I do see is some backpedaling on the issue. I see a lot of talk saying "I don't use federally registered lobbyists money". But not all lobbyists are federally registered, for example: the ones that work for UBS. He is using a loophole here. That's what the above quote of "FactCheck: no lobbyist money; yes from bundlers who lobby " is referring to.


    Please show me the exact quote on your post where he says he no longer takes this money.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  5. #35
    Elite Member nycgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSDiva View Post
    Can you read, he said he took it before, and know that it was wrong, and that is why he isn't taking it now!!!
    you don't have to be rude just because someone disagrees with you

  6. #36
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,488

    Default

    ^^ Thank you
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  7. #37
    Elite Member *DIVA!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    15,742

    Default

    I wasn't being rude, I was asking a question. It seemed to me that she didn't read it!! I don't care if someone disagree or agree with me, just don't spread untruths!!

    You've been talking a lot about lobbyists and money in politics. The Boston Globe in August reported: "In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, almost 2/3 of the money he raised for his campaigns came from political action committees, corporate contributions, unions, and many other corporate interests." You now talk about, "Well, I'm not taking any money from lobbyists." You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal employees who work for federal lobbying firms. There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it's coming from, and your rhetoric.A: I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. I have raised money in order to bankroll my campaigns. But what I have been consistent about is fighting to reduce the influence of money in politics at every level of government. I am the only candidate in this race who has really pushed hard to reduce the influence of lobbyists.
    You have taken a firm stand against accepting money from lobbyists, yet you allow them to raise money for you and "bundle" it. What's the difference between those things?A: No, no, I do not have federal-registered lobbyists bundling for me, just like I don't take PAC money. People need to know who we are going to fight for. The reason I'm in public life, the reason that I am running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks.
    Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007
    Campaigns last too long & cost too much

    Campaigns last too long and they cost too much money. And they're disproportionately influenced by Washington insiders, which is why it's not going to be enough just to change political parties [in the presidency]. But we also have to make sure that we are mobilizing Americans across race & regions, if we're actually going to bring these changes about. Change doesn't happen from the top down, it happens from the bottom up. It's because millions of voices get mobilized and organized. Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007
    Doesn't take PAC money or federal lobbyists' money

    Q: [to Kucinich] What do you have that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do not have?KUCINICH: The new doctrine that I'm going to promote throughout this campaign is that we'll use the science of human relations and diplomacy to settle your differences without committing the young men and women to war, unless it's absolutely necessary.
    CLINTON: The issue is: Which of us is ready to lead on day one? I have 35 years of being an instrument and agent of change.
    OBAMA: I don't think this is just a Republican problem. I think this is a problem that spans the parties. And we don't just need a change in political parties in Washington. We've got to have a change in attitudes of those who are representing the people. And part of the reason I don't take PAC money, I don't take federal lobbyists' money is because we've got to get the national interests up front as opposed to the special interests. And that is something that I've got a track record doing.
    Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007
    Baltimore O's ​Fan!

    I don''t know if she really fucked the board though. Maybe just put the tip in. -Mrs. Dark

  8. #38
    Elite Member nycgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4,316

    Default

    I'm sure you probably didn't mean intend for it to come across that way, but in general asking someone if they "can read" or not is condescending and rude. You didn't ask her if she'd read it, you asked if she could read.

  9. #39
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,488

    Default

    ^^ I still don't see where he says he no longer takes the money.


    I'm not spreading untruths, but I've read your post three times and all I see is someone making excuses for taking money. I cannot find any statement saying that he is no longer taking it.

    He says "I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics andI am not sinless. I have raised money in order to bankroll my campaigns. But what I have been consistent about is fighting to reduce the influence of money in politics at every level of government. I am the only candidate in this race who has really pushed hard to reduce the influence of lobbyists."

    So I don't see it there. he admits he takes the cash

    Then he says "No, no, I do not have federal-registered lobbyists bundling for me, just like I don't take PAC money. People need to know who we are going to fight for. The reason I'm in public life, the reason that I am running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks. "

    It's not there either, but he slips in his loophole about "federal-registered" lobbyists.

    What I do see is that he takes the money, but says he fights against influence of lobbyists in Washington. Then he says he takes money from "Bundlers". He also doesn't dispute the fact that he took $1.5 mil from federal employees that work for federal lobbying firms.

    So please extract the line where he says he no longer takes this money. Because all I see are smoke and mirrors.
    Last edited by witchcurlgirl; February 19th, 2008 at 11:19 PM.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  10. #40
    Elite Member Cali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    citizen of the world
    Posts
    5,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal employees who work for federal lobbying firms
    The difference is, those facts are being used in a deceitful manner in both the Boston Globe article, and in your arguments.

    In other words, what Obama is saying this: that he took $1.5 million from individuals who happened to work for federal lobbying firms. We know this: Obama's campaign is FUNDED on individual contributions. The fact that they happen to work for a federal lobbying firm is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the federal lobbying firm writing a check on behalf of the firm to his campaign.

  11. #41
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Calimoonchild View Post
    The difference is, those facts are being used in a deceitful manner in both the Boston Globe article, and in your arguments.

    In other words, what Obama is saying this: that he took $1.5 million from individuals who happened to work for federal lobbying firms. We know this: Obama's campaign is FUNDED on individual contributions. The fact that they happen to work for a federal lobbying firm is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the federal lobbying firm writing a check on behalf of the firm to his campaign.
    The Boston Globe endorses Obama for President, so don't claim that the Globe is lying about his record.

    What is deceitful is that he uses "bundlers" as a way to hide the fact that he takes lobbyist contributions.

    He also keeps saying he doesn't take money from "federally registered" lobbyists. Not all lobbyists are federally registered.

    You can try to spin it, but he takes the cash.

    The LA Times has all the same information on the contributions as the Boston Globe, and they endorsed Obama as well.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  12. #42
    Elite Member Cali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    citizen of the world
    Posts
    5,444

    Default

    I'm not spinning it! You're not interpreting the sentence right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Calimoonchild View Post
    In other words, what Obama is saying this: that he took $1.5 million from individuals who happened to work for federal lobbying firms. We know this: Obama's campaign is FUNDED on individual contributions.
    Thats what the Boston Globe article means. You are just interpreting the sentence wrong. To your interpretation, its like saying Obama is endorsed by McDonald's because $3 million of his donations come from people who are employed by McDonalds. Thats faulty reasoning. Do you see what I mean?

    He didn't get $1.5 million FROM federal lobbying firms. He got $1.5 million in INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS from PEOPLE WHO HAPPEN TO WORK FOR federal lobbying firms.

  13. #43
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,488

    Default

    I do see your meaning, but I think you misunderstand mine.
    The Globe article I posted does not mention the 1.5 mill from the Federal Employees. That came from SSDiva's post and was brought up on MEET THE PRESS. Here is her quote:

    Q: You've been talking a lot about lobbyists and money in politics. The Boston Globe in August reported: "In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, almost 2/3 of the money he raised for his campaigns came from political action committees, corporate contributions, unions, and many other corporate interests." You now talk about, "Well, I'm not taking any money from lobbyists." You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal employees who work for federal lobbying firms. There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it's coming from, and your rhetoric.
    A: I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. I have raised money in order to bankroll my campaigns. But what I have been consistent about is fighting to reduce the influence of money in politics at every level of government. I am the only candidate in this race who has really pushed hard to reduce the influence of lobbyists.

    I think you are crossing the two posts. I'm not concerned with $1.5 mil from the federal employees, SS DIVA brought that up, I only stated that he doesn't dispute taking it. Here's my quote "He also doesn't dispute the fact that he took $1.5 mil from federal employees that work for federal lobbying firms." That is the only time I mention these donations.


    It's the money that he's getting from the lobbyists and PAC's while claiming he doesn't that gets me. That's what the Globe article is about.
    Last edited by witchcurlgirl; February 20th, 2008 at 12:34 AM.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  14. #44
    Elite Member Cali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    citizen of the world
    Posts
    5,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions - including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries - to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.
    Again, as I said, this is about distorting the facts. This article is biased and was written in August of 2007, long before they endorsed Obama.

    Here is a link to Obama's 'PAC' Hope Fund official website.
    HOPEFUND - SENATOR BARACK OBAMA, CHAIR

    You will see that what the Globe article makes appear very sinister and calculating is actually not. The description of Hope Fund is as follows:
    "Through Hopefund, Senator Barack Obama is promoting the candidacies of leaders who are committed to changing the course of our nation to ensure the promise of America for future generations."

    Its not about hiding lobbyist money in a PAC in exchange for Obama's support of whatever issues. Hope Fund is a fundraising organization for political candidates who support the like issues. to my view, its simliar to Emily's List or any other organization.

    The website says as much:

    "
    At Hopefund, we believe that to cultivate hope, to place it within the grasp of every American, we must elect more Democrats to public office. That is why Senator Obama formed Hopefund -- a political committee whose purpose is to elect Democrats, in both red and blue states, who share these beliefs.

    Already, Hopefund has made contributions to Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2006 and helped raise nearly half a million to help the Democrats take back the United States Senate. Our activities will not be limited to the United States Senate: Hopefund will be our vehicle to help shape the debate for Democrats around the country."

    So, its an organization that takes individual donations from people who support that platform. In turn, Hopefund rolls that money over into the candidacies of like-minded politicians and helps to promote those individuals and serve as another means of fundraising for them. I have no illusions that it isnt a political vehicle and a means of getting things done by supporting leaders with the same agenda as him so they can all work together to impact change on those issues. And of course it makes sense that those leaders who support his issues would support him for President. And thats fair, legal, and ethical.

    I understand from your posts that you are cynical to the entire political process. But sometimes, people are just good and ethical. Sometimes thats a reality. I'm sorry you're having so much trouble accepting that that is the truth with Sen. Obama.

  15. #45
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,488

    Default

    ^^ You're right I'm cynical. When you've seen as much of the world as I have, you may be cynical too. Churchill said "If you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at 40 you have no head". I'm closer to 40 than 20

    I may be cynical , but you seem naive to me. You take Hopefund's own mission statement as fact. How about some independent thought on that? What do the watchdog's say?

    You also make the point in another post about Re-branding (quoting Andrew Sullivan) "A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."

    This thinking is completely naive in regard to the Middle East. The hatred of the US in the region is not new, and didn't start with the current Iraq war, or even the Gulf war in 1991.

    We (America) have a 60 year history of involvement in the region.

    They hate us because we helped re-place the Shah on the throne after he had been democratically overthrown, allowing a dictator who tortured and killed his own people with US support to remain in power for 40 years.

    They hate us for our support of Israel starting in 1948 and continuing to this day. Electing Obama will not change our policy on Israel.

    They hate us because in 1949 we overthrew the elected government of Syria

    They hate us because we sent troops into Lebanon in 1958 and 1983

    They hate us because in the early 60's we attempted to assisinate Iraqi leader Abdul Karim Qassim

    They hate us because in 1973 we airlifted military aid to Israel, helping them defeat Egypt and Syria

    They hate us because in 1975 we refused to condemn Israel's bombing of Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths

    They hate us because in 1981 we sent ships to hold military maneuvers off the coast of Libya

    They hate us because in 1982 we gave Israel the green light to invade Lebanon, which caused the deaths of 20,000 civilians

    They hate us because in 1998 we (with the UK) bombed Iraq

    They hate us because in 1991 we permanently placed troops in Saudi Arabia

    These reasons, and the effects of what we have done are not going to magically go away if Obama is elected. Do you think the Arabs are unaware of the fact that while he says he's against the war, he has voted for every war funding bill? Money that has helped slaughter them. The Arabs are a politically astute people, and they know way more about us than most of us do about them
    Last edited by witchcurlgirl; February 20th, 2008 at 01:15 PM.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton by only 2 delegates
    By kingcap72 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 9th, 2008, 12:09 AM
  2. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton shake up politics
    By *DIVA! in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2008, 03:52 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 22nd, 2008, 03:21 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 21st, 2008, 11:06 PM
  5. Replies: 19
    Last Post: November 8th, 2007, 05:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •