How one Brit came to his senses about Obama
- Thread starter sho-tim
- Start date
No fuck-face its not a threat.. he likes John McCain from everything I have heard him ever say, and he was just opining that McCain could possibly tarnish his image of class and dignity that he stood for since the Vietnam war by listening to losers like you who have to use dirty tactics and smear other human beings running for public office to protect your greedy self-interests!!
You really are a whack job aren't you?
Listen once and for all you loser!
Ayers is a f-king patriot and hero who stood up against tyranny back at a time when you were obviously in diapers or not even born. It was a time when lots of deep injustice and indignity was forced on others like blacks and women and other minorities by right-wing losers like you. Now Keating on the other hand is a garden-variety, white collar corrupt criminal and it was MCCAIN who got into trouble with his brother Senators for his association with KEATING, not Obama. Now did you hear anyone bring that up (keating) until you right-wing retards began to mention Ayers in refernece to Obama?!
I will be so fking glad when we purge this Country of right-wing hypocrite radicals like you who over 8 years have run this country into the ground in the name of free markets and trickle down. It's not about trickle DOWN it's trickle UP!
Conservative scum like you have the belief that profits are to remain unmanaged and untouched by government but with losses it's OK that government operate like quasi-socialists and bail your coward-asses out of trouble. But soon as government wants to raise taxes a few dollars you right-wing hypocrites are furiuous. Why don't you post how furious you are that republican scum on wall street etc. were bailed out at taxpayer's expense instead of harpng about Obama and Ayers, who is really a rebel/hero.
Frankly I would love to sit down with Ayers. But I would spit in the face of Keating who costs millions of regular, middle-class people all their life savings!
I don't agree on much with you HOWEVER I do have to agree with you here. I was a big McCain supporter but his pointless shots at Obama over pointless things is a big turn off. Instead of talking about what he wants to do to fix the situation he's stuck on attacking Obama's past relationship with people. I couldn't care less about Wright or Ayers, I want to know how either of these two are going to solve real issues.
I'm hoping that McCain is just putting on a last ditch desperate smear campaign to appease the right wing nuts and when he gets elected, he will return to his former more moderate self.....oh and sweep Palin under the rug. The only value she adds is she makes good fodder for SNL, otherwise she is truly useless.
I do have to say that I have lost a lot of respect for McCain's character after this smear campaign but....unfortunately looks like he is less shitty than the other piece of shit we get to pick from....yay for democracy.
You are a very weird guy, just admit it and move on. Try to find new pleasure in your life like hunting, fishing, or just plainly go to the bar and do what ever you like to release some pressure you have put on your self; get the hell out of the dull life you have and stop whining in open public forum like some crazed middle age guy whose sole purpose is to drag others down to your own level of hallucinations. Please get help.
sg20
sg20
Welfare sucks, and I am against it. However... at least a dollar given to the poor is dollar that STAYS IN OUR ECONOMY. A dollar spent on a bullet that is shot in Iraq is a dollar that leaves our economy, forever. This, combined with our trade deficit, is a Very Bad Thing. Welfare is still a Bad Thing, but it doesn't directly destroy the absolute fundamentals of our economy; on a national-level scope, redistribution of wealth isn't nearly as bad as the destruction of wealth.
State sponsored religion: yes.
"Faith-based initiatives" funnel millions of tax dollars into religious institutions. This is probably the religious right's greatest victory in recent years, because the Supreme Court has apparently decided that the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to executive orders. This is a strong implicit admission that the Faith-based Initiative crap DOES represent state-sponsored religion, but is permissible through a loophole that leaves the Executive branch immune. All hail Pope Bush II.
Furthermore, the Republican party attempted to put the ten commands in classrooms in the 90s, then they attempted to rebrand Creationism as "Intelligent Design" and put that in science classrooms only a few years ago (if you are one of the ones who think that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory, please review the prosecution's evidence. It was clearly proven that ID was a very sloppy cut-and-paste job that replaced "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design".) School vouchers are also state-sponsored religion... they are taking my tax dollars and funneling them directly into private religious institutions.
My point is this: non-religious conservatism seeks to reduce the government's size and influence. Giving away tax dollars to religious institutions clearly expands the government's power and influence over matters it shouldn't be concerned with, and also increases taxes (or debt) in the process.
Thus, state-sponsored religion is inherently liberal. Religious conservativism (in the political sense, not the moral sense) and fiscal conservativism are not compatible.