Democrats Failed by Picking Obama

What were you thinking?

Published on August 17, 2008 By Island Dog In Democrat

I have no shame and I am proud to admit I am a Conservative American. However, McCain is obviously not my first choice but I will admit he has a good shot at rolling right over Obama this fall. After watching some of last nights "forum" I really have to wonder what goes through the heads of democrats in this country. If they truly want "change", why nominate a candidate with no experience and a very shady background? I mean seriously, did anybody at the DNC ever take a look at Obama's background?

What we know about Obama:

He's a good speaker.
He wants "change".
He's black.

That's about it folks.

We all know he wants "change", but depending on what state he's in or what the poll's show, that "change" is hard to figure out. With gas prices topping out at over $4 a gallon, Obama's solution seems to be the same solution for everything across the board.....raise taxes. Of course his supporters don't realize the implication of that because they are too busy holding hands and chanting "change" whever they go.

What we don't know about Obama:

If he's actually eligible to run for President.
Why he is hiding his muslim past.
Why the media is going to great lengths to cover for Obama.
And much, much more.

Now me making note that Obama (or Barry Sotetoro) is black will automatically make me labeled as a racist. That is the tactic the Obama campaign and the DNC have done from the start, and they think Americans are too stupid to not realize it. Lets make it known, I don't care what color Barry is, it makes no difference to me. The only person who has made race an issue in this campaign is Barry himself. Anyone who disagrees with his policies, or questions his past is labeled as a racist and the media runs with it. The only issue I have with race in this campaign is Barry's support for people like Wright and Louie, or in other words, the real racists in this election.

There are now serious questions being raised to if Obama is actually eligible to be President. Back during the debates, the DNC and media pushed a story that McCain wasn't eligible because he was born in Panama. The McCain camp fought back this attack and won, but the media hasn't made any mention of the allegations against Obama that his birth certificate is faked, and that his whole background is a fuzzy blur. Is it true, I don't know, but why doesn't the media and Barry come forward with the truth and put this matter down?

Next, Barry keeps lying about his muslim past. My problem isn't that he was a muslim, my problem is that he keeps lying to conceal the fact. For what purpose? Even his own family in Kenya wonders why he is hiding his past.

Now this "forum" this weekend really proved what I have been saying for months, Obama is nothing more than a huge marketing campaign. If he is not in front of a teleprompter or has the ability to select the questions given to him, he stumbles....and he stumbles BAD. McCain blew Obama away and the far left is non to happy about it today. They are now promoting new stories that talk about how Novembers election is already "rigged" for McCain, and other nonsense that they make up.

The fact is Obama is a horrible candidate for the democrats, and you really have to start asking why the democrats chose Barry. I often make tongue-in-cheek comments about the intelligence of people voting democrat, but after seeing millions of Americans being fooled to vote for someone with a fake "rock star" image, I have to wonder if my comments are really true.

Comments (Page 5)

ParaTed2k

on Sep 01, 2008

Mooseplow:

And unless you share parents with your co-workers, none of them are "brothers" or "sisters"... unless of course, you are a Marxist, then I question your respect for freedom.

This was your quote, Simply put you said that if I call my co-workers "Brothers" or "Sisters" then I am a Marxist ans you question my respect for freedom. Are memebers of the military Marxists? With this quote that is what you are saying.

Quite clearly I said, "unless you are a Marxist, then I question your respect for freedom". Read what is there, not what isn't.

Where do I start with this one? Come on seriously. First off my union leaders dont pay me. Their job is to get better wages and benefits for me. And they do that very well. Right now we have non-union competition in our indsutry and at top rate they make about $10-$12 less at top rate. And we get to top rate faster. The benefits make this gap even larger. In almost all industries unions get better pay than is standard fro thier brothers and sisters.

I realize strikes are a last resort thing, but when they happen the union usually pays "Strike Pay" right? If the union insists that your employer should pay you $X, then why do they all of the sudden feel you aren't worth that amount when they are paying you?

Also, you didn't answer the rest of the questions.

Daiwa

on Sep 01, 2008

If the union insists that your employer should pay you $X, then why do they all of the sudden feel you aren't worth that amount when they are paying you?

You forget... that's for 'not' working.

ParaTed2k

on Sep 01, 2008

You forget... that's for 'not' working.

LOL Daiwa, true! But then again, Union leaders demand that employers pay union members whether they work at "work" or not.

Mooseplow

on Sep 01, 2008

Also, you didn't answer the rest of the questions.

neither did you and neither did Dr Guy, you guys love to do that:)

Mooseplow

on Sep 01, 2008

You forget... that's for 'not' working.

Anyday you want to get up every weekday morning at 3:45am and go move 3000 packages everyday with an average weight of 25lbs(going up to 150lbs) in a warehouse with no air flow whatsoever, where when you walk inside its like a sauna in summertime and an icebox in the winter. And do it all in 4 hours be my guest. Then for the next 4 hours take in packages and try to deal with tons of cranky customers that are mad at you for something someone else at the 1-800-number(outsourced to india or wherever) did. Well come on over. Its people like Daiwa that would support rich people sending all those jobs overseas(another reason trickle down doesnt work,rich people commiting treason for a profit). Kudos to helping out and being patriotic about our own country and people.

Daiwa

on Sep 01, 2008

So you're saying it sucks to be you, Mooseplow? I suggest you focus on the reasons companies have incentive to outsource. Fact is, whether you like it or not, there are people willing to move those 3000 packages, figuratively speaking, even at 3:45am, for less. That you equate profit with treason says a lot about you. In fairness, many companies would willingly continue to pay above-market wages & salaries (talking global market here) to American workers if the other costs associated with doing business here weren't so high. In the name of many good intentions, we've hampered business competitiveness so much that the burden has fallen on workers like you, remaining competitive being completely dependent on increased productivity. I hope things get better for you soon.

Mooseplow

on Sep 01, 2008

That you equate profit with treason says a lot about you.

I look at it as the same as sending military secrets overseas(when you do it to the degree that is going on now) your just doing it economically by hurting our own people. And no it doesnt suck to be me, what I am saying is that I am fortunate to have my job as it does pay decent and that I am most other union workers do work hard for our money(there are always exeptions which is unfortunate). My grand point in this whole post history here was that most are not as lucky as me and in my job I have been fortunate/unfortunate, depends on your point of view, to so those people. And in the end my point was that it should be just as patriotic to help those people as it is to support our troops in war. Thats all.

Dr Guy

on Sep 02, 2008

By the way Dr Guy I do have to tell you, I love your avatar....its pretty funny

Cats - the other white meat.

Dr Guy

on Sep 02, 2008

neither did you and neither did Dr Guy, you guys love to do that:)

Sorry, I did not see your question (or if I did, I must have throught it was directed towards another). What was the question you wanted answered?

Dr Guy

on Sep 02, 2008

JU burps

ParaTed2k

on Sep 02, 2008

I look at it as the same as sending military secrets overseas(when you do it to the degree that is going on now) your just doing it economically by hurting our own people.

If you truly equate selling military secrets to outsourcing you are truly a sick individual. Thank you for this comment, it tells me that there is no reason to waste my time reading any of the swill that comes from your depraved mind. Don't bother responding, because I won't read it.

Daiwa

on Sep 02, 2008

There was a federal version (identical to the Illinois version) which did pass. Obama voted 'no' on that one too.

Wasn't it the other way around, LW? I thought the federal version had already been written & considered before or while BO was a state legislator - IIRC, one of the reasons he voted no in Illinois was that it supposedly didn't have the language 'protecting' RvW provisions that the federal version of BAIPA had. I'm not certain it came up while he was a US Senator. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Daiwa

on Sep 02, 2008

That's just a lie he told, lol.

I'm aware of that. I was just questioning the timing. I don't think he had an opportunity to consider the federal version of BAIPA as a US Senator.

kingbee

on Sep 02, 2008

Apparently not, since babies born alive after late-term abortion attempts were routinely discarded as so much trash.

i'm no lawyer but here's the 1975 illinois statute which seems to require doctors performing abortions to preserve the life of any fetus showing signs of viability. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1928&ChapAct=720%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A0510/&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&ActName=Illinois+Abortion+Law+of+1975.

There was a federal version (identical to the Illinois version) which did pass. Obama voted 'no' on that one too.

to which federal bill are you referrring? what year was it passed in the senate? was obama a us senator at the time?

kingbee

on Sep 02, 2008

Wasn't it the other way around, LW?

looks that way to me too.

I don't think he had an opportunity to consider the federal version of BAIPA as a US Senator.
You are correct, because it passed the Senate unanimously.

daiwa's correct for a much more pertinent reason: unless there's another bill of which i'm unaware, he wasn't a us senator at the time it was presented and voted upon.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!