Obama Claims Nomination; First Black to Lead a Major Party
-
under barack obama bama bama eh eh eh.. lol.. from some old madtv.. have a look and have a larf..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=D0rSeI0nhjU
only in other countries.. singapore u like that play the leaders i think u die until no corpse..
-
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
Yes he did have to take those political actions. Thats why I think he is a typical politician, just the same, not really unique. What is the difference with other politicians who change course depending on which way the wind blows?
I did watch the US campaign. At first I have good impression of this guy.......young, energetic, and being black, there is a sense of freshness and change, and being the underdog it is easy to sympathize with him. I wanted him to win and rooted for him.
But after a while cracks begin to show, and it seems he got corrupted by the campaign whirlwind. He sells his principles out. Or maybe there was no principle, it was just a show only, like a good salesman conning you.
For instance,
Didnt he at first want to 'unify' , avoid 'politics of destruction' so on etc, sounds so good, but by middle of process when Hillary was fighting hard and almost catching up, he himself participated in this 'politics of destruction'. He did negative attacks.
Another one, anti-NAFTA. This is very significant. This episode paints him as a total politician.
What is the difference between him and Hilarry on this anti-NAFTA issue? None. Both are pretending and lying, they know free trade is good, but they become turncoat anti-NAFTA and racing with each other trying to slam NAFTA. They said all sorts of lies, saying wanting to re-negotiate, when renegotiation is not posible, the treaty is done deal.
Third, the most cringe worthy moment....he dumped his pastor to save his own skin.
Actually he didnt want to admit he attend a militant black church which sometimes slam white people, it is uncomfortable for him. For me, it is understandable black churches sometimes slam white people, thats not such a shocking thing. But Obama is put in an awkward position, embarassing position, and he had to pretend.
First speech abt it, sounds so noble, it is a 'craft' or a PR trick to mask his true past in that church and deflect attention. That is still ok. But the worst is when he strongly dumped his pastor later. I got very bad vibe from this. From a guy-next-door image, sincere-guy image, he totally don the mantle of an ultimate politician, quick and adept, and willing to stab his own pastor when occasion calls for it.
In life, certain things just cannot be done. He reminds me of a son who goes into business, then back-stab his own father to further his business interest.
What is the difference with this? Ok little bit diff. He is a man who goes into politics, then back-stab his own 20-year pastor to further his political interest.
Ok another one.......initially I was impressed with his intellect, in the debates he is very good, especially on foreign policy.
Now he is back-pedalling, and has to repeatedly pander to Jewish groups. Endlessly and ceaselessly. You can see the plot already, can see the scenario.
So now, and in future if he becomes president, he will just continue to 'prove' his jewish-friendliness, and all those early talks about Iran and Middle East, about new direction in foreign policy, will just be moot, empty talk. He will be taken hostage and wont dare to take any action which might offend those groups. A very typical pandering politician who has to sell himself.
I have more to rant, but now I am hungry and I must go for dinner....see u all later....
PS: my fav is Ron PaulMeat Pao.
Figures that a pro-PAP syncoplant would support an idiotic libertarian. Wait, you don't even understand that word do you?
Judging from all the comments in this thread, half you lot don't even know what the fuck you are talking about. Obama a Muslim jeez..... He has a bloody Pastor idiots.
-
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
Yes he did have to take those political actions. Thats why I think he is a typical politician, just the same, not really unique. What is the difference with other politicians who change course depending on which way the wind blows?
I did watch the US campaign. At first I have good impression of this guy.......young, energetic, and being black, there is a sense of freshness and change, and being the underdog it is easy to sympathize with him. I wanted him to win and rooted for him.
But after a while cracks begin to show, and it seems he got corrupted by the campaign whirlwind. He sells his principles out. Or maybe there was no principle, it was just a show only, like a good salesman conning you.
For instance,
Didnt he at first want to 'unify' , avoid 'politics of destruction' so on etc, sounds so good, but by middle of process when Hillary was fighting hard and almost catching up, he himself participated in this 'politics of destruction'. He did negative attacks.
Another one, anti-NAFTA. This is very significant. This episode paints him as a total politician.
What is the difference between him and Hilarry on this anti-NAFTA issue? None. Both are pretending and lying, they know free trade is good, but they become turncoat anti-NAFTA and racing with each other trying to slam NAFTA. They said all sorts of lies, saying wanting to re-negotiate, when renegotiation is not posible, the treaty is done deal.
Third, the most cringe worthy moment....he dumped his pastor to save his own skin.
Actually he didnt want to admit he attend a militant black church which sometimes slam white people, it is uncomfortable for him. For me, it is understandable black churches sometimes slam white people, thats not such a shocking thing. But Obama is put in an awkward position, embarassing position, and he had to pretend.
First speech abt it, sounds so noble, it is a 'craft' or a PR trick to mask his true past in that church and deflect attention. That is still ok. But the worst is when he strongly dumped his pastor later. I got very bad vibe from this. From a guy-next-door image, sincere-guy image, he totally don the mantle of an ultimate politician, quick and adept, and willing to stab his own pastor when occasion calls for it.
In life, certain things just cannot be done. He reminds me of a son who goes into business, then back-stab his own father to further his business interest.
What is the difference with this? Ok little bit diff. He is a man who goes into politics, then back-stab his own 20-year pastor to further his political interest.
Ok another one.......initially I was impressed with his intellect, in the debates he is very good, especially on foreign policy.
Now he is back-pedalling, and has to repeatedly pander to Jewish groups. Endlessly and ceaselessly. You can see the plot already, can see the scenario.
So now, and in future if he becomes president, he will just continue to 'prove' his jewish-friendliness, and all those early talks about Iran and Middle East, about new direction in foreign policy, will just be moot, empty talk. He will be taken hostage and wont dare to take any action which might offend those groups. A very typical pandering politician who has to sell himself.
I have more to rant, but now I am hungry and I must go for dinner....see u all later....
PS: my fav is Ron PaulMeat Pao.
give me a break..... if you want political utopia, you are in the wrong planet.
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
give me a break..... if you want political utopia, you are in the wrong planet.
No, the problem is not utopia. The problem is that libertarians happen to be the morons who don't like government regulation. Why? Because government regulation dampens their ability to make money. Now, fast forward to the subprime crisis. When the lack of oversight led to the crisis, the bankers screamed for government help. You can tell the disconnect right away. These fuckers just want to bitch rape the people.
-
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
Yes he did have to take those political actions. Thats why I think he is a typical politician, just the same, not really unique. What is the difference with other politicians who change course depending on which way the wind blows?
I did watch the US campaign. At first I have good impression of this guy.......young, energetic, and being black, there is a sense of freshness and change, and being the underdog it is easy to sympathize with him. I wanted him to win and rooted for him.
But after a while cracks begin to show, and it seems he got corrupted by the campaign whirlwind. He sells his principles out. Or maybe there was no principle, it was just a show only, like a good salesman conning you.
For instance,
Didnt he at first want to 'unify' , avoid 'politics of destruction' so on etc, sounds so good, but by middle of process when Hillary was fighting hard and almost catching up, he himself participated in this 'politics of destruction'. He did negative attacks.
Another one, anti-NAFTA. This is very significant. This episode paints him as a total politician.
What is the difference between him and Hilarry on this anti-NAFTA issue? None. Both are pretending and lying, they know free trade is good, but they become turncoat anti-NAFTA and racing with each other trying to slam NAFTA. They said all sorts of lies, saying wanting to re-negotiate, when renegotiation is not posible, the treaty is done deal.
Third, the most cringe worthy moment....he dumped his pastor to save his own skin.
Actually he didnt want to admit he attend a militant black church which sometimes slam white people, it is uncomfortable for him. For me, it is understandable black churches sometimes slam white people, thats not such a shocking thing. But Obama is put in an awkward position, embarassing position, and he had to pretend.
First speech abt it, sounds so noble, it is a 'craft' or a PR trick to mask his true past in that church and deflect attention. That is still ok. But the worst is when he strongly dumped his pastor later. I got very bad vibe from this. From a guy-next-door image, sincere-guy image, he totally don the mantle of an ultimate politician, quick and adept, and willing to stab his own pastor when occasion calls for it.
In life, certain things just cannot be done. He reminds me of a son who goes into business, then back-stab his own father to further his business interest.
What is the difference with this? Ok little bit diff. He is a man who goes into politics, then back-stab his own 20-year pastor to further his political interest.
Ok another one.......initially I was impressed with his intellect, in the debates he is very good, especially on foreign policy.
Now he is back-pedalling, and has to repeatedly pander to Jewish groups. Endlessly and ceaselessly. You can see the plot already, can see the scenario.
So now, and in future if he becomes president, he will just continue to 'prove' his jewish-friendliness, and all those early talks about Iran and Middle East, about new direction in foreign policy, will just be moot, empty talk. He will be taken hostage and wont dare to take any action which might offend those groups. A very typical pandering politician who has to sell himself.
I have more to rant, but now I am hungry and I must go for dinner....see u all later....
PS: my fav is Ron PaulMeat Pao.
Ron Paul ?.. Ohhhh phwwwweeesss.. Not another Texan !!!
Oil Oil Oil.. we don't want more oil , we want ALTERNATIVE FUEL !!!
-
what is.. neo con
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
what is.. neo con
You no no how to use google ?
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
what is.. neo con
Someone who thinks American interests are best protected by either force, or economic strangulation.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
You no no how to use google ?
easier to ask
-
I never believe one day Americans will choice one black presidential candidate. But now,Obama, surprise! surprise! That say so much about american peoples,they are colour blind, they likes and respective the persons who are capable regardless their races. American black has come a long way from slave to the Presidential hopeful.
Best wishes to American peoples!
-
i support mccain now, since hillary is out of the campaign.
IMHO, i think the democrats stand a better chance if the clintons are nominated to run for president.
look, though people may deny it, there is still traces of racism in America today. the white population is larger than that of the blacks and "others". if it boils down to race issue, obama will be at a disadvantageous position.
hillary clinton, on the other hand, is a woman. the population of the usa can be said to be 50% male to 50% female, where the support base are roughly the same. hillary will stand to have a larger support base of women, as oppose to obama's base of african americans.
Hillary lost because of the democratic camp's infighting, where we see some of her supporter base voting for obama. if nominated, i think hillary will command a greater chance to win the election rather then obama.
McCain had been the sole victor of this fight between the 2 candidates, and his support has risen from 20+% to 40+%. it will only be a few months before he reaches the "magical" 50% to stand a fair chance of winning. when that moment comes, no matter how bad bush's administration is, both camps will need to fight equally hard to win over votes to win.
back to the clintons, i still think that choosing them will be value for money, with bill being an experienced advisor, being a former 2-terms president, who, well, did reasonably well with the economy,as opposed to bush's administration.
obama, on the other hand, is inspiring, but he lacks the proposal on what and how exactly he will do to help bring USA back on track. all he has is charisma and nothing else. we didn't even heard of him, and any of his achievement (if there's any), before his nomination campaign.
bad choice, democrats.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Is he connected to Osama or he is just a normal mama?
Maybe angels are a homogeneous lot but we mortals are more complicated. Obama's father was an African, Ghanaian to be precise, while his mother a US ang moh. Osama, on the other hand, is middle eastern. -
Originally posted by deathmaster:
i support mccain now, since hillary is out of the campaign.
IMHO, i think the democrats stand a better chance if the clintons are nominated to run for president.
look, though people may deny it, there is still traces of racism in America today. the white population is larger than that of the blacks and "others". if it boils down to race issue, obama will be at a disadvantageous position.
hillary clinton, on the other hand, is a woman. the population of the usa can be said to be 50% male to 50% female, where the support base are roughly the same. hillary will stand to have a larger support base of women, as oppose to obama's base of african americans.
Hillary lost because of the democratic camp's infighting, where we see some of her supporter base voting for obama. if nominated, i think hillary will command a greater chance to win the election rather then obama.
McCain had been the sole victor of this fight between the 2 candidates, and his support has risen from 20+% to 40+%. it will only be a few months before he reaches the "magical" 50% to stand a fair chance of winning. when that moment comes, no matter how bad bush's administration is, both camps will need to fight equally hard to win over votes to win.
back to the clintons, i still think that choosing them will be value for money, with bill being an experienced advisor, being a former 2-terms president, who, well, did reasonably well with the economy,as opposed to bush's administration.
obama, on the other hand, is inspiring, but he lacks the proposal on what and how exactly he will do to help bring USA back on track. all he has is charisma and nothing else. we didn't even heard of him, and any of his achievement (if there's any), before his nomination campaign.
bad choice, democrats.
Did you actually read his website and policies, or did you just pull that out of your ass?
-
there is talk this guy could end up Obama's running mate as VP....
Former NATO commander General James Jones
-
Originally posted by chinese helicopter:
I never believe one day Americans will choice one black presidential candidate. But now,Obama, surprise! surprise! That say so much about american peoples,they are colour blind, they likes and respective the persons who are capable regardless their races. American black has come a long way from slave to the Presidential hopeful.
Best wishes to American peoples!
I am not sure about Obama being Black. His father is Black but his mother is White; he is a mixed race. But see the way he claimed to be Black. A clever political attempt to be affiliated with the Black community.
Now his attempt to affiliate with the Jewish community. This just proves that this guy can play the racial card and the playing racial card can be a dangerous game. -
welll you have to look at who started the race topics first during the course of the Primiaries.
As for Jewish communities any Person who wanted to get ELECTED as US President will need the endorsement of the Jewish community in the US. both Rep and Dem.
Also during election years, candidates will associate themselve with various US demographics. .
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
i support mccain now, since hillary is out of the campaign.
IMHO, i think the democrats stand a better chance if the clintons are nominated to run for president.
look, though people may deny it, there is still traces of racism in America today. the white population is larger than that of the blacks and "others". if it boils down to race issue, obama will be at a disadvantageous position.
hillary clinton, on the other hand, is a woman. the population of the usa can be said to be 50% male to 50% female, where the support base are roughly the same. hillary will stand to have a larger support base of women, as oppose to obama's base of african americans.
Hillary lost because of the democratic camp's infighting, where we see some of her supporter base voting for obama. if nominated, i think hillary will command a greater chance to win the election rather then obama.
McCain had been the sole victor of this fight between the 2 candidates, and his support has risen from 20+% to 40+%. it will only be a few months before he reaches the "magical" 50% to stand a fair chance of winning. when that moment comes, no matter how bad bush's administration is, both camps will need to fight equally hard to win over votes to win.
back to the clintons, i still think that choosing them will be value for money, with bill being an experienced advisor, being a former 2-terms president, who, well, did reasonably well with the economy,as opposed to bush's administration.
obama, on the other hand, is inspiring, but he lacks the proposal on what and how exactly he will do to help bring USA back on track. all he has is charisma and nothing else. we didn't even heard of him, and any of his achievement (if there's any), before his nomination campaign.
bad choice, democrats.
"Hillary lost because of the democratic camp's infighting"
Dude I hate to say this You must have been Sleeping for the last 16 months during the Dem Primaries.
Hilary is Money for Value.
You know what…. I believe when Hilary camp did the Polls. It was people like you that provide the feedbacks.
Please review what she was at the start:
She was leading in Polls
She start up with 160 millions in her campaign finance.
She has over 160 super delegates lead.
She has the support of black votes.
She was the Presumption Nominees for Dem
Please look at Now:
1) She lost to a Dem Rookie by States
2) She is in Debt by the millions
3) Super delegates cross over to Obama
4) She piss off black voters
Hilary can practically write a best selling Novel and make a millions on HOW I LOST to OBAMA. And recovered the debts. Follow by sending Bill to the outhouse.
Wait and read her book lah..