Nomar said:
That is the greatest video ever, why isn't that on the news.....I guess it's just too true.
Obama
- Thread starter RBBailey
- Start date
That is the greatest video ever, why isn't that on the news.....I guess it's just too true.
More from our good ol' friend Rev. Manning, PhD.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DjJuATjHpts
"Don't turn America over to the Negreos, no, no, no, no,.....they not ready yet.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KY-to8M4hCI
This is some great stuff, it is comical. Manning should go down with other famous black comedians.
I can't stop laughing while watching it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DjJuATjHpts
"Don't turn America over to the Negreos, no, no, no, no,.....they not ready yet.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KY-to8M4hCI
This is some great stuff, it is comical. Manning should go down with other famous black comedians.
I can't stop laughing while watching it.
Last edited:
MarkP said:
Seems like the one thing most people can actually agree on, is that "the problem" is indeed Bush. How we fix it after he is done, well, that is the question.
Your post, #476.vray said:
Referring to the "faulty facts" in the piece Mark posted.
What are the faulty facts?
jim-00-4.6 said:
See my post #272, he fails to address any of my questions about Obama comments he posted as well.
Bannon88 said:
Just another uninformed yet vocal Dumb-O-Crap.
Last edited:
Who are the Democrats who don't cling to guns and religion? Follow the money . . .
Who Gives to Dems?
So follow the money . . . who support the Democrat Party?
So who favors the Republicans?
The party of slavery, segregation, identify politics, socialist, . . . . and the party of elites.
Obama does fit in well. So does the super-delegate scheme where elites decide the nominee, not the Democrat voters.
Who Gives to Dems?
Pundits have feasted on Barack Obama’s recent musing that Pennsylvania’s rural citizens “cling” to their religion and guns out of embittered economic desperation. Thus far, they have focused on whether Obama is an elitist who views religion as a crutch and whose copy of the Constitution somehow lacks the Second Amendment.
More important, though, is whether Obama’s remarks reflect the emerging demographic transformation of the Democratic party from a bottom-up “party of the people” into a holding pen for all sorts of economic and educational elites. One way to test this is to look at who has been making presidential campaign contributions during the 2008 election cycle. Thanks to the way the Federal Election Commission collects this data, we can sort contributions according to a donor’s occupation or employer.
More important, though, is whether Obama’s remarks reflect the emerging demographic transformation of the Democratic party from a bottom-up “party of the people” into a holding pen for all sorts of economic and educational elites. One way to test this is to look at who has been making presidential campaign contributions during the 2008 election cycle. Thanks to the way the Federal Election Commission collects this data, we can sort contributions according to a donor’s occupation or employer.
So follow the money . . . who support the Democrat Party?
Through May 1, the Democratic presidential field has suctioned up a cool $5.7 million from the more than 4,000 donors who list their occupation as “CEO.” The Republicans’ take was only $2.3 million. Chief financial officers, general counsels, directors, and chief information officers also break the Democrats’ way by more than two-to-one margins. . . . And this isn’t new: In 2004 all but one of these categories of top corporate officers broke just as dramatically for the Democrats, the “presidents” being the exception.
Wall Street firms, long a symbol of American elite accomplishment, also tilt decisively toward the Democrats. Employees in storied Wall Street institutions such as Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley have all favored the Democratic field by a large margin. Even both sides of the recent Bear Stearns/JP Morgan Chase deal choose Democratic candidates over Republicans by two-to-one margins. . . .
Not surprisingly, universities offer Democrats a hotbed of support. Professors favor Democrats over Republicans by a nine-to-one margin ($3.7 million to $430,000).
The “objective” media — reporters, journalists, publishers and editors — also breaks heavily for the Democrats.
But no listed occupation gives the Democrats a greater edge than the unemployed. These presumably idle folks have dropped over $14.6 million into the laps of the Democrats. Their idle Republican neighbors, in contrast, have unburdened themselves of a mere $9,775.
So who favors the Republicans?
. . . The white-shirt/red-tie brigade of Republican presidential aspirants holds a nearly three-to-one edge among janitors, custodians, cleaners, sanitation workers, factory workers, truckers, bus drivers, barbers, security guards, and secretaries. While Democrats command the financial loyalty of architects, Republicans successfully woo contributions from the skilled craftsmen who turn their blueprints into reality — specifically, contractors, hardhats, plumbers, stonemasons, electricians, carpenters mechanics, and roofers. This trend extends to the saloons, where the Democrats carry the bartenders and the Republicans the waitresses. The GOP field even secures more financial support from teamsters, steelworkers, bricklayers, and autoworkers. . . . .
The party of slavery, segregation, identify politics, socialist, . . . . and the party of elites.
Obama does fit in well. So does the super-delegate scheme where elites decide the nominee, not the Democrat voters.
9
97Rover
Guest
What happened to vray?
Is he still searching for the questions we asked him, damn he is taking his time.
Is he still searching for the questions we asked him, damn he is taking his time.
Well at least the guy is honest about how the Democrats decide who the nominee is . . .
DNC Superdelegate Puts His Vote Up For Sale
cbs13.com/local/Superdelegate.Vote.Ybarra.2.718616.html ^ | 05/07/2008 | Tzuriel
From February Superdelegates get campaign cash
Ybarra should auction his vote on ebay.
DNC Superdelegate Puts His Vote Up For Sale
cbs13.com/local/Superdelegate.Vote.Ybarra.2.718616.html ^ | 05/07/2008 | Tzuriel
DNC Superdelegate Puts His Vote Up For Sale Steven Ybarra Wants $20 Million For His Vote SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CBS13) ― In this tight battle for the Democratic nomination we've heard a lot about the candidates courting superdelegates.
But, one superdelegate is courting the candidates. He says he'll sell his vote for a price. A very high price: $20 million.
Steven Ybarra of Sacramento says that eight-figure price is peanuts for the presidency. . . .
But, one superdelegate is courting the candidates. He says he'll sell his vote for a price. A very high price: $20 million.
Steven Ybarra of Sacramento says that eight-figure price is peanuts for the presidency. . . .
From February Superdelegates get campaign cash
. . . Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000. . . .
Ybarra should auction his vote on ebay.
:rofl:
Barack Obama sacks adviser over talks with Hamas
Times Online ^
May 10, 2008
Ah, . . . . . just a few months ago . . . .
January 23, 2008
Barack Obama's Middle East Expert
There is that sticky issue again - judgement.
Wright
Malley
. . . .
who else close to Obama will become inconvenient?
Barack Obama sacks adviser over talks with Hamas
Times Online ^
May 10, 2008
One of Barack Obama’s Middle East policy advisers disclosed today that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas - prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.
Robert Malley told The Times he had regularly been in contact with Hamas, . . .
But Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly, saying: "Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future."
Robert Malley told The Times he had regularly been in contact with Hamas, . . .
But Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly, saying: "Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future."
Ah, . . . . . just a few months ago . . . .
January 23, 2008
Barack Obama's Middle East Expert
. . . One of his advisors in particular, Robert Malley, clearly warrants attention, as does the reasoning that led him to being chosen by Barack Obama. . . .
Question remain
Why would Barack Obama have on his foreign policy staff a man who has been widely criticized for a revisionist history of the Middle East peace process sharply at odds with all other accounts of the proceedings?
Why would Barack Obama give credibility to a man who seems to have an agenda that includes empowering our enemies and weakening our friends and allies?
How did Robert Malley, with a record of writing that reveals a willingness to twist facts to serve a political agenda, come to be appointed by Obama to his foreign staff?
Was it a recommendation of Zbigniew Brzezinski to bring on board another anti-Israel foreign policy expert?
What role did the left-wing anti-Israel activist George Soros play in placing Robert Malley (or for that matter, Brzezinski himself) in a position to influence the future foreign policy of America?
What does it say about Senator Obama's judgment that he appointed a man like Malley to be a top foreign policy advisor?
Question remain
Why would Barack Obama have on his foreign policy staff a man who has been widely criticized for a revisionist history of the Middle East peace process sharply at odds with all other accounts of the proceedings?
Why would Barack Obama give credibility to a man who seems to have an agenda that includes empowering our enemies and weakening our friends and allies?
How did Robert Malley, with a record of writing that reveals a willingness to twist facts to serve a political agenda, come to be appointed by Obama to his foreign staff?
Was it a recommendation of Zbigniew Brzezinski to bring on board another anti-Israel foreign policy expert?
What role did the left-wing anti-Israel activist George Soros play in placing Robert Malley (or for that matter, Brzezinski himself) in a position to influence the future foreign policy of America?
What does it say about Senator Obama's judgment that he appointed a man like Malley to be a top foreign policy advisor?
There is that sticky issue again - judgement.
Wright
Malley
. . . .
who else close to Obama will become inconvenient?
vray said:
Yes and no. I'm not sure blaming the man gets to the meat of the issue. In other words, is it Bush, or is it the Neo-Con (Liberal) policies he has enacted?
For instance, in what ways do you see Bush's policies being the problem? (This being a bad way to go about it, since no one is voting for Bush this time around, but it's a round about way to get to the issue of who is going to do what next.)
Well RB I actually got to meet Obama yesterday. Should have a photo to post soon. It was interesting listening to his town hall meeting
He is a very good speaker, makes his plans sound like EVERYONE should jump on board. No joke, I actually like the guy for his stage presence, the fact that he seems respectable, and I actually hope he is telling the truth and that his vague/broad statements about, "Change in Washington" are the type of change that brings us back to the Constitution.
I have a feeling that when the general elections start there will be a lot of backlash against people like me in my profession -- we already have teachers giving credit for writing about him or for going to his rallies; several are holding Obama parties at their houses where they hand out invitations at school in front of the kids, and put them in my mail box; they make general statements about how it would be, "inconceivable to not vote for someone like him," and of course my union is already near... well... let's just say the excitement is building in the old NEA to a fever pitch -- my junk mail at my home is about 30% Obama support literature; information I am supposed to disseminate to my neighbors and friends and family -- and they will soon show up at my room at work and give me their nice little not-so-anonymous surveys on my political standings; and they will no doubt ask me how it's all going with the spreading the word and pounding the sidewalk they want me to do.
1. How often do you volunteer your time to the Political Action Committee in the NEA? (Something like that... serious! They actually ask this stuff.)
2. How well do you feel you understand the message the PAC is attempting to spread during this important political year? (And that's not far off either.)
3. How can we help you understand better? Re-education camp? (OK, so I made that one up.)
I pretty much ignore it so I won't have to do it. But I'll see if I can get a hold of one to bring home if they do it again next year like they did during the last election.
Technically, they can't do anything to me, but I do rely on the NEA for a job -- I am required to pay my dues which they use for all of this stuff, and I am required to be a member to have a teaching license. It has always reminded me of something, but I can never quite put my finger on it... hummmmmmm...
I have a feeling that when the general elections start there will be a lot of backlash against people like me in my profession -- we already have teachers giving credit for writing about him or for going to his rallies; several are holding Obama parties at their houses where they hand out invitations at school in front of the kids, and put them in my mail box; they make general statements about how it would be, "inconceivable to not vote for someone like him," and of course my union is already near... well... let's just say the excitement is building in the old NEA to a fever pitch -- my junk mail at my home is about 30% Obama support literature; information I am supposed to disseminate to my neighbors and friends and family -- and they will soon show up at my room at work and give me their nice little not-so-anonymous surveys on my political standings; and they will no doubt ask me how it's all going with the spreading the word and pounding the sidewalk they want me to do.
1. How often do you volunteer your time to the Political Action Committee in the NEA? (Something like that... serious! They actually ask this stuff.)
2. How well do you feel you understand the message the PAC is attempting to spread during this important political year? (And that's not far off either.)
3. How can we help you understand better? Re-education camp? (OK, so I made that one up.)
I pretty much ignore it so I won't have to do it. But I'll see if I can get a hold of one to bring home if they do it again next year like they did during the last election.
Technically, they can't do anything to me, but I do rely on the NEA for a job -- I am required to pay my dues which they use for all of this stuff, and I am required to be a member to have a teaching license. It has always reminded me of something, but I can never quite put my finger on it... hummmmmmm...
Last edited:
Be a member of the party, or else.RBBailey said:
Yeah, I can see that union being all for obama.
socialists.
Isn't the essence of a union having someone else do things for you?
Like negotiate your salary, because you're too stupid.
Or protect you from big mean employer, because you're too pathetic.
Or tell you how to vote, because you can't figure it out for yourself.
I'm not busting your balls, RB, but it's not like teaching is the same as working in a coal mine. It's not like teaching is all these horrible hours, under dangerous conditions.
I understand the union has paid off the right people, so you HAVE to be a member to teach, I just think it's bullshit.
RBBailey said:
There is a reason the unions want Obama to win.
May 05, 2008
Obama And The Teamsters Consent Decree
The WSJ reports today that Obama has quietly gone into the tank for the Teamsters, thereby winning their endorsement:
Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.
It's an unusual stance for a presidential candidate. Policy makers have largely treated monitoring of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a legal matter left to the Justice Department since an independent review board was set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union. . . .
It's an unusual stance for a presidential candidate. Policy makers have largely treated monitoring of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a legal matter left to the Justice Department since an independent review board was set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union. . . .
Obama is simply the candidate of Chicago corruption.
Farrakhan
Rezko
Auchi
Wright
Malley
Hoffa (not just yet)
Baghdadi (still waiting his turn in the spotlight)
. . . . .
Rezko Watch
If Hillary is finally on the way out, and the percieved short-comings or political "baggage" of Obama is too much for you to overlook; what's the alternative, McCain?
I deeply respect the man, but come on!
He's 71 for crying out loud... Anyone who thinks that won't make a difference on how he is able to do the job is probably under 50!
His wife is rich and won't disclose her income tax filings. I don't really care, but remember the grief the Republican's gave kerry over his wife?
And talk about what's good for the goose... What about the catchy "flip-flopper" label? McCain's pandering to voting groups by changing his stance on what some call "key-issues" makes Kerry look like he's wearing Red Wings instead of floppers.
Wasn't McCain the guy who partnered up with kennedy to propose amnesty for illegals?
I thank McCain for his service, I feel terrible about what he experienced in Vietnam, I actually liked him back when he ran against Bush. But I think his time has past and he's watered down what he did have going for him 8 years ago.
No matter how you feel about their political ideology, the Democrats ahve fielded two strong candidates. The Republican's know the country won't give them another four years after GWB and no really viable candidate stepped forward.
Get use to it, Obama will be the next POTUS.
I deeply respect the man, but come on!
He's 71 for crying out loud... Anyone who thinks that won't make a difference on how he is able to do the job is probably under 50!
His wife is rich and won't disclose her income tax filings. I don't really care, but remember the grief the Republican's gave kerry over his wife?
And talk about what's good for the goose... What about the catchy "flip-flopper" label? McCain's pandering to voting groups by changing his stance on what some call "key-issues" makes Kerry look like he's wearing Red Wings instead of floppers.
Wasn't McCain the guy who partnered up with kennedy to propose amnesty for illegals?
I thank McCain for his service, I feel terrible about what he experienced in Vietnam, I actually liked him back when he ran against Bush. But I think his time has past and he's watered down what he did have going for him 8 years ago.
No matter how you feel about their political ideology, the Democrats ahve fielded two strong candidates. The Republican's know the country won't give them another four years after GWB and no really viable candidate stepped forward.
Get use to it, Obama will be the next POTUS.
CADisco said:
No they haven't. The only reason Obama is still in this race is Hillary's high negatives. The only reason Hillary is in this race is that she was suppose to be crowned queen, months ago. Obama is only strong among blacks and elite democrats. He loses big outside the far left.
The current Democrat candidates are the result of identity politics, not strong accomplishments or records.
CADisco said:
Hillary's core voters will vote McCain and conservatives will come around and vote for McCain to prevent Chicago corruption and a Marxist from being POTUS.
You do know that if Obama isn't confirmed on the first vote, the delegates are released from their pledge for any subsequent voting.