1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    For instance, you brought up a post of mine from june because of a different wording.
    No, to show that you have a pattern of saying things that aren't true.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    a guy who can become wealthy from as shitty a background as Obama sounds like a plus when I'm picking someone to be our leader.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Obama grew up in poverty for much of his life.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Not as wealthy as Romney of course, but he came from extremely humble backgrounds.
    And I simply asked what about Obama's background can be considered as poverty, shitty, or extremely humble. This is a point you have made repeatedly, both previously and today, about a Democratic candidate for president in a thread about Democratic candidates for president. It's relevant and current. So why not answer the question?

  2. #222
    Errr. Shitty, Poverty, and Extremely Humble are in no way mutually exclusive. Or even partially exclusive. In fact they all seem pretty related.

  3. #223
    Yeah see when I was talking about a debate worth having explaining information that's on the first section of the man's wiki page wasn't the kind of stuff I was talking about.

    You're a smart enough guy. You know the man's biography. This isn't a point of interest or serious debate.

    So maybe we could discuss electoral strategy? Policy? Things of substance? The kind of stuff you seem to avoid in favor of this crap?

  4. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Yeah see when I was talking about a debate worth having explaining information that's on the first section of the man's wiki page wasn't the kind of stuff I was talking about.
    You're a smart enough guy. You know the man's biography. This isn't a point of interest or serious debate.
    Ok, so I'll change the question to where on the front page of Obama's Wikipedia entry is there evidence that his background or upbringing could be considered as poverty, shitty, or extremely humble. This is a point you have made repeatedly, both previously and today, about a Democratic candidate for president in a thread about Democratic candidates for president. It's relevant and current. So why not answer the question?

    If it's not a point of interest or warranting of serious debate...here's a tip Wells, THEN DON'T SAY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

  5. #225
    If it's not a point of interest or warranting of serious debate...here's a tip Wells, THEN DON'T SAY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
    sorry I assume people will address my actual arguments instead of every random word. I'll know better next time you're in the thread.

    I gave you a source Merkava, if you don't want to read it or whatever then fine, but I'm out of shits to give.

    ---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 09:36 AM ----------

    Here's another for you as well

    http://www.barack-obama-timeline.com/

    Bounced around, got into drugs, periods of having not a lot of money, absent father, etc etc etc.

    But you already knew about all this, you're just being difficult in an attempt to win e-points.

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    sorry I assume people will address my actual arguments instead of every random word. I'll know better next time you're in the thread.
    Actual arguments? Do you mean like arguing that Andrew Breitbart is guilty of extorting Anthony Weiner? Still waiting for the NY district attorney to hold the press conference announcing that charges have been filed. Or do you mean like your argument that Newt Gingrich's wife was riddled with cancer when he divorced her? You refused to provide a citation for that one because it was such a "common, base level of knowledge." Oh and I almost forgot, you changed your point to "Newt Gingrich thought she had cancer.

    Oh wait, newsflash, Wells edited his post. It would appear that he wants to discuss his "random point" that was previously not worthy of " interest or serious debate." Too bad your link does nothing to support your statement. Has a goofy relationship with his father? So does Lindsay Lohan. Kid at prestigious prep school does drugs to fit in? Poor baby. Doesn't have much money? You mean he can't ask his grandma, who he's living with for money? She was only the first female vice-president at the Bank of Hawaii. Or maybe you meant he didn't have much money during the 3 1/2 years that he lived in Indonesia. The link you provided said that "In Indonesia Barack Obama becomes familiar with poverty, beggars, and children dying from illnesses." Wikipedia however, says this of his time in Indonesia


    "In October 1967, Obama and his mother moved to Jakarta to rejoin his stepfather. Obama, his mother and his stepfather initially lived in a rented house at 16 Kyai Haji Ramli Tengah Street in a newly built neighborhood in the Menteng Dalam administrative village of the Tebet subdistrict in South Jakarta for two and a half years, with his stepfather working on a topographic survey for the Indonesian government. From January 1968 to December 1969, Obama's mother taught English and was an assistant director of the U.S. government-subsidized Indonesia-America Friendship Institute, while Obama attended the Indonesian-language Santo Fransiskus Asisi (St. Francis of Assisi) Catholic School around the corner from their house for 1st, 2nd, and part of 3rd grade.

    In 1970, Obama's stepfather's financial situation was improved by a new job in Union Oil Company's government relations office, and the family moved two miles north to 22 Taman Amir Hamzah Street in the Matraman Dalam neighborhood in the Pegangsaan administrative village of the Menteng subdistrict in Central Jakarta. From January 1970 to August 1972, Obama's mother taught English and was a department head and a director of the Institute of Management Education and Development, while Obama attended the Indonesian-language government-run Besuki School, one and half miles east in the exclusive Menteng administrative village, for part of 3rd grade and for 4th grade, and was a Cub Scout. In mid-1970, between 3rd and 4th grades at the Besuki School, Obama spent the summer in Hawaii with his maternal grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, and interviewed for admission to the Punahou School in Honolulu.


    Living in newly built administrative neighborhoods, attending exclusive private schools, Cub Scouts, father working for the government, mother working with US subsidized program, summers in Hawaii. Sounds awful.

    In the future, when you link to cites that do nothing to support your argument (nothing against the fair and unbiased people over at http://www.barack-obama-timeline.com) can you at least make it interesting? Maybe something with nude celebs preferably?
    Last edited by Merkava; 2012-02-07 at 10:46 AM.

  7. #227
    See here you took a statement that was fairly vague, decided what you wanted it to mean, and then attacked that. I never said he was poor all his life, never said nothing ever went his way. Your selections don't disprove anything.

    Which is pretty much you I guess. I mean shit, you somehow thing that bring up Weiner means something. In a thread about Obama, when responding to a discussion about Obama. Or the Gingrich thing, where i gave you a source and you hand waved it away.

    But its ok, I know you love me anyway.

  8. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by bobthenailer View Post
    4 more years barry soetoro or obama or whatever his name is will destroy the United States. He will destroy all of our constitutional rights should he be elected into office once more. He has already destroyed our right to trial... he can lock us away without trial at this very moment if he wanted. He signed that bill right last month. BHO is ineligible to serve anyways his biological father was a British subject in Kenya. You can't be a natural born citizen unless both your parents are citizens.

    What this country really needs is no political parties because they mostly just breed corruption and no representation for the people. America needs leaders who won't bow to the Chicoms or the King of Saud.

    America needs leaders who will enforce our borders, language (english) and culture. Which is what defines a nation.
    Our constitutional rights were forfeit the moment the horde of the American people BEGGED for something like the Patriot Act to be implemented. That's the day the constitution died. Everything else after that wondrous day in history is the final death throws of a freshly rotting corpse. We'll see such jerks and twitches for the next ten to twenty years, no doubt, but I assure you... it's already dead, and has been, for at least six years.

    Also, not to be too unfair, the Fed was to the constitution as cancer is to a human being. It's pretty much death, it MIGHT not kill you, it WILL take awhile, but it was certainly a cancer. Sadly, a cancer at the time that everyone was again BEGGING for.

    Hindsight 20/20 baby. All the way.

  9. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    See here you took a statement that was fairly vague, decided what you wanted it to mean, and then attacked that. I never said he was poor all his life, never said nothing ever went his way.
    You never told me what your statement meant. When pressed for an explanation, you linked to Wikipedia. When that failed, you linked to http://www.barack-obama-timeline.com. When that failed, you say your statement was vague. Well again, what exactly did you mean when you said he grew up in poverty for much of his life? Or that he had a shitty background? Or that he had an extremely humble background? He's your hero, not mine. Let's hear what you have to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Which is pretty much you I guess. I mean shit, you somehow thing that bring up Weiner means something. In a thread about Obama, when responding to a discussion about Obama. Or the Gingrich thing, where i gave you a source and you hand waved it away.
    It's not about me. It's about you. And the fact that you say things that aren't true. Provide evidence or nude pics of Kat Dennings. Enlighten or entertain. The choice is yours.

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by Merkava View Post
    No, to show that you have a pattern of saying things that aren't true.



    And I simply asked what about Obama's background can be considered as poverty, shitty, or extremely humble. This is a point you have made repeatedly, both previously and today, about a Democratic candidate for president in a thread about Democratic candidates for president. It's relevant and current. So why not answer the question?

    I mean, what defines poverty at this moment? It's already been stated by the Feds that our American level of poverty isn't even actually poverty, as for the most part "poor" people aren't lacking food, electricity, water, or a house to live in. We just don't have three cars, an X-Box 360 AND a PS3, we might just be able to afford Wii.

    Hell I'm a fucking impoverished family, and I've got the internet and I home school all six of my sons on an entire network run through my house. We have a garden, we have pets, we have a Wii, we never go starving, we have a roof over our heads. We're still by EVERY FORM OF WEALTH KNOWN! Considered "poor" by American standards.

    Also I don't get what's so great about having a person who was ACTUALLY HOMELESS running as a President of the United States.
    If you take Obama and compare his ass to George W or Kennedy, or Reagan, as far as presidents go you're fucking right he came from poor standards.
    He wasn't born rich, he wasn't born DESPERATE either.

    Castro was born desperate. As was Saddam. As was Hitler. The list goes on and on and on about desperate people gaining power.

    Also for the record, truly desperate people never win by playing the game, they win through force... Because they're DESPERATE.

  11. #231
    You never told me what your statement meant.
    Maybe because it was an entirely subjective statement, as you so clearly showed in your last post?

    When that failed, you say your statement was vague. Well again, what exactly did you mean when you said he grew up in poverty for much of his life? Or that he had a shitty background? Or that he had an extremely humble background?
    I've already explained this thanks.


    It's not about me. It's about you. And the fact that you say things that aren't true.
    heheheh.

    ---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 10:58 AM ----------

    You know if in almost 7000 posts I've said two things that are wrong I think I can live with that. Especially given the rather creepy way you seem to follow me on this board.

  12. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    I've already explained this thanks.
    .
    No you didn't. You derided your own points, calling them random and not worthy of discussion, you tried to distract from the subject by questioning me, you appealed to moderators for help, you provided links to sites general (Wikipedia) and biased (barack-obama-timeline.com) that do nothing to support your statements, you derided your own points some more calling them vague, you attempt to move the goalposts ("I never said nothing ever went his way"), and finally say your original statement was subjective. But at no point whatsoever did you provide any evidence for your claims or attempt to explain them.

    Ok fine. I give up. It's subjective. What a pathetically juvenile defense. But it must be true because everyone knows George Bush had a shitty background too, what with his alcohol abuse and the fact that he grew up in poverty for much of his life (compared to the Sultan of Brunei).

  13. #233
    biased (barack-obama-timeline.com)
    Why do you say this?

    But at no point whatsoever did you provide any evidence for your claims or attempt to explain them.
    I certainly did. You hand waved them away with terms of "poor baby" and "so does Lindsay Lohan", whatever she has to do with this.

    I never intended it as a debate point. That's why they're not serious statements, rather vague subjective ones. You see how this works?

    Ok fine. I give up.
    So following the Merkava rules of debate I win?

    Or would you like me to provide links showing 6,898 is sufficiently close to 7000 to use the subjective term "almost"? 20 pages of debating how much you think I'm wrong to say "almost 7000"?

  14. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    I never intended it as a debate point. That's why they're not serious statements, rather vague subjective ones. You see how this works?
    Yea, I see how it works. And I'm sure everyone else on here does too. You say something stupid and I tell you you're wrong. And the cycle starts. You give links that do nothing, praying that I won't read them; you beg the moderators for help; you try to get me banned for sarcasm; you move the goalposts; and now this new one; you'd rather destroy your own post than admit that you're wrong. You refer to your statements as vague and not serious. You make the ridiculous claim that your "point was never intended as a debate point". You got me banned for calling you pathetic before, so this time I'll simply say that I find that your position has the capacity to move me to either compassionate or contemptuous pity and is pitifully inferior or inadequate.

  15. #235
    I voted for Obama first go around. As far as his first term has gone it has been quite dissapointing. One one side I understand that the las idiot..I mean President got us into a crap load of trouble. Wars mainly and the ecomony to be fair you can't always blame on just one President in my opnion. President Bush did get us into a war while cutting taxes on the very rich and also not the biggest fan of de-regulation which they are alot of people to blame.

    Along comes President Obama. Again I think he missed the boat in trying to first get his Health Care pushed across instead of doing more getting jobs and economy going. I'm again for universal health care but just the wrong time to do it. What I liked about Obama was that he was trying to find the middle road yet the Republicans fought him on everything. So I feel bad for the guy yet then again I think he didn't do a great job of fighting for things. Shoot at Bush rammed crap through even if it was not popular. My least favorite thing is Obama has been really weak. Like lately (just so happens to be an election year, go figure) he talks tough about getting job bills signed yet, nothing. Really frustrating..yes I know Republicans are of no help. My opinion of course. On the foreign policy he has definately been unbelievable with killin of Osama and getting us out of the two wars as much as possible.

    So I guess while I have not really been the bigest fan of what Obama has done he is much better than the Republican candidates. I won't start a flame fest here but I'll just say much of what the Republican candidates have said and done I'm not a fan of their ideas. I like Ron Pauls view on foriegn policy of isolationism but he goes to far in his libertarian views. So Obama for 2012.
    Last edited by Paranoid Android; 2012-02-07 at 01:21 PM.

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by Merkava View Post
    Yea, I see how it works. And I'm sure everyone else on here does too. You say something stupid and I tell you you're wrong. And the cycle starts. You give links that do nothing, praying that I won't read them; you beg the moderators for help; you try to get me banned for sarcasm; you move the goalposts; and now this new one; you'd rather destroy your own post than admit that you're wrong. You refer to your statements as vague and not serious. You make the ridiculous claim that your "point was never intended as a debate point". You got me banned for calling you pathetic before, so this time I'll simply say that I find that your position has the capacity to move me to either compassionate or contemptuous pity and is pitifully inferior or inadequate.
    Maybe you just took my point more literally and importantly than I did? This is kind of what happens when you ignore a whole argument in favor of nit picking. And I'm not even saying I'm wrong, just that its dumb to put so much importance on a minor point.

    You've been banned before for breaking rules. How you choose to interpret that is up to you. I haven't reported you this thread so stop whining about it.
    Last edited by Wells; 2012-02-07 at 08:03 PM.

  17. #237
    Obama is a little right wing for me. I'm a Canadian who drifts between Liberal and NDP and he is right of Steven Harper whom is pretty far right in Canada. However I do appreciate his Charisma and his resourcefulness to find the few loopholes he may exploit while republican congress
    ( congress controls most of the power) has actually stated their only goal to be to insure he is a 1 term president.

    ---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 10:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Shon237 View Post
    I voted for Obama first go around. As far as his first term has gone it has been quite dissapointing. One one side I understand that the las idiot..I mean President got us into a crap load of trouble. Wars mainly and the ecomony to be fair you can't always blame on just one President in my opnion. President Bush did get us into a war while cutting taxes on the very rich and also not the biggest fan of de-regulation which they are alot of people to blame.

    Along comes President Obama. Again I think he missed the boat in trying to first get his Health Care pushed across instead of doing more getting jobs and economy going. I'm again for universal health care but just the wrong time to do it. What I liked about Obama was that he was trying to find the middle road yet the Republicans fought him on everything. So I feel bad for the guy yet then again I think he didn't do a great job of fighting for things. Shoot at Bush rammed crap through even if it was not popular. My least favorite thing is Obama has been really weak. Like lately (just so happens to be an election year, go figure) he talks tough about getting job bills signed yet, nothing. Really frustrating..yes I know Republicans are of no help. My opinion of course. On the foreign policy he has definately been unbelievable with killin of Osama and getting us out of the two wars as much as possible.

    So I guess while I have not really been the bigest fan of what Obama has done he is much better than the Republican candidates. I won't start a flame fest here but I'll just say much of what the Republican candidates have said and done I'm not a fan of their ideas. I like Ron Pauls view on foriegn policy of isolationism but he goes to far in his libertarian views. So Obama for 2012.
    I personally wish the USA had simply gone with the traditional universal healthcare or gone with the swiss version of making insurance agencies have to supply non-profit health insurance

    As for ron pauls view on military I agree. However at the same time I would like to see foreign aid by shiping agriculture implements. Solar panals, Wind turbines, funding for schools.

    This creates for an excellent defense. If the USA merely isolates itself enemies in the middle east will continue to see Americans as pigs who via arms dealing bankrupt their countries.

    If you are providing food, shelter and education you are seen as a valuable ally and at the same time when people are well fed, and educated it makes for a more stable populace that gradually progresses. Not to mention security of person increases negotiation with corperations hence driving up the global minimum wage of which over time benefits the USA and at a fraction of the cost of the present military budget.

    ---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 11:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by bobthenailer View Post
    4 more years barry soetoro or obama or whatever his name is will destroy the United States. He will destroy all of our constitutional rights should he be elected into office once more. He has already destroyed our right to trial... he can lock us away without trial at this very moment if he wanted. He signed that bill right last month. BHO is ineligible to serve anyways his biological father was a British subject in Kenya. You can't be a natural born citizen unless both your parents are citizens.

    What this country really needs is no political parties because they mostly just breed corruption and no representation for the people. America needs leaders who won't bow to the Chicoms or the King of Saud.

    America needs leaders who will enforce our borders, language (english) and culture. Which is what defines a nation.
    Ya a bill passed via congress which just so happens to be republican. Unfortunately a purposefully imposed image is a godhead president when he has fairly few abilities. This is done for the purpose of having a scape goat.

    Can you imagine the convenience of having 1 person who would take the blame for everything yet not the glory, who could be canned and shipped out to a happy life if public rep goes down

    Both parties supported the US defense bill because the people passing it have lobbyists and a simple strategy of putting forth bills under non stoppable names

    United states defense bill
    Patriot act
    Stop online piracy act
    Protect Intellectual property act
    Stop child pornography act

    Essentially an uninformed voter hears that the president used his limited veto on any of those acts is going to vote against him.
    Last edited by warlocked; 2012-02-07 at 10:22 PM.

  18. #238
    Obama flip flops on Super Pacs: He first says they are evile and terrible and bad for democracy, in the midterms when his majority was threatened; now, they are gooood and he is gonna get them!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...1812&#46301798

    Super Pac's are a blight on American politics, and him embracing them suddenly further cements my belief that he does not care anything about the people, just his job.

    ---------- Post added 2012-02-08 at 01:05 AM ----------

    And do not get me wrong, I would vote for Obama over any of the current crop of Republicans other then Paul, and he will not get the nomination obviously. I think Super Pacs are bad for BOTH sides.

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by warlocked View Post

    Ya a bill passed via congress which just so happens to be republican. Unfortunately a purposefully imposed image is a godhead president when he has fairly few abilities. This is done for the purpose of having a scape goat.

    Can you imagine the convenience of having 1 person who would take the blame for everything yet not the glory, who could be canned and shipped out to a happy life if public rep goes down

    Both parties supported the US defense bill because the people passing it have lobbyists and a simple strategy of putting forth bills under non stoppable names

    United states defense bill


    Patriot act
    Stop online piracy act
    Protect Intellectual property act
    Stop child pornography act

    Essentially an uninformed voter hears that the president used his limited veto on any of those acts is going to vote against him.
    I never understood how the public can be content with a government which creates laws which are named to be "sold" to the public like that... Its just so... shallow and shortsighted...

  20. #240
    Traditionally, polling data shows a democrat bias in most major polls. One example were all the early calls of Florida for Al Gore. Most recently, The Real Clear Politics average in the final days of the 2008 campaign offered the same:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-225.html

    The most accurate polls were from FOX News and Rasmussen. Each had Obama winning by 7%, very close to his 7.3% margin of victory. By comparison, Gallup and Reuters/C-Span/Zogby had Obama winning by 11. CBS and ABC had Obama winning by 9.

    Currently, Rasmussen has Obama +3 on Gingrich, while most of those others have it at double digits. Rasmussen has Santorum +1 over Obama, while most other polls have it Obama in double digits. When it comes to Romney, most all of them have it Obama +6.

Posting Permissions

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