Barack Hussein the Cool Drug User

[RDD_1210]

Find pictures like these of Obama in 2008.
All of these were duri8ng the 2008 campaign..

Were these being used by the MSM?

 

[Jarhead]

Thanks for answering. Yes I guess those are all certainly possible. I don't know that any of those would have automatically swung the election towards McCain but it certainly wouldn't have looked good for Obama.

Let me ask you this....would that information been relevant to you during the pr4imary season?

In other words, wouldnt you have liked to have known if he had mediocre grades? Would you have liked to know that his entrance to Columbia was based on race and not grades? (if that was the case)

Sure, during the primary season it would have been nice to know. However I don't vote based upon school grades, I vote based upon a persons position. I didn't care about McCains grades or the fact that he was a POW, it was his positions that made me not want to vote for him.

At this point though, whats the point of this? Impeachment? Stubborn refusal to let it go?

Huh?
Impeachemtn?
Refusal to let go?

Excuse me....but we are going through the vetting process.....remember? An election coming up?

McCains positions are irrelevant.

However, Obamas positions are ONLY relevant to you if he is honest with his positions...so how can you trell if he is honest or just saying what you want to hear?

You examine his character...you see who he admires.....you review his past...and see how he has evolved over the years.

Yet you seem to want to minimize the importance of character and ONLY base your decision on what he CLAIMS to be his positions.

Thats what makes America great. That works for you and youy can do it.

 

[The Infidel]

All you are doing is proving that honesty and openness, and character in a candidate mean nothing to you.

I wonder if Obama would have stayed in a POW camp until his fellow soldiers were released?

Doubt it

No, all I am showing is that even when one "conspiracy" is squashed (ie. his birth certificate) another will just be created by people who will do anything to discredit someone that they clearly have an agenda against.

A rational person at some point will say to themselves...this stuff doesn't matter and I don't care about who his pastor was, what he ate in 3rd grade or how well did he do in school.

I dont care who his pastor was either.

However, I do care who any candidate claims to be his mentor, advisor and close friend.

See, you brush it off as his pastor...that was just one part of who Wirght was to him.

He is ALSO the man that Obama considered his mentor.

Yet you want to minimize that and simply refer to him as his pastor.

That is being disingenuous...either in this debate or to yourself.

Not only that... but he started his political career in the living room of a guy who bombed The Pentagon.

Yep, lets just gloss over all that.


RDD_1210 cares about none of that though

 

[Jarhead]

Huh? Thats it?

you are a smart guy and I guess you assume all are as smart as you are.

NMost are not.

Most judge people based strictly on appearance....

So tell me.....who is more presidential looking....

There are terrible pictures of every candidate out there. Are you implying that the MSM only used the good picture of Obama and the bad picture of Hillary when referencing them?

yes...those were MSM photos......and they were stop action shots that you can get of ANYONE.....

Yet.....

Can you find ONE of Obama?

 

[Liability]

So did I. What is your point ? (other than the one on your head)

Like lots of drug users, you are a mental midget moron piece of shit rat twat.

Nobody cares (and nobody is surprised) that a fuckwit like you did drugs.

 

[BlindBoo]

But you can go to jail for disrespecting the president... I heard a teacher say so

Just another example of an idiot teacher. Your point?

Pussies like you would be rolling around and flopping like a fish on a dock if the 'right' made a movie about the assassination of Pres. Obama and you know it.

Except there was never a movie made in American by the left about the assassination of President Bush.

There was a British movie about what a Dick Cheney Presidency would have been like that starts off with President Bush being assassinated. The movie was about what happens next.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I didn't know "the left" made a movie as a team. I guess "the right" also bombed federal buildings in Oklahoma city. See how generalizing works?

Nice try, but no dice

Sure... my "team" made a movie you don't like, your "team" bombed a federal building. If you want to lump everyone as either for you or against you, you are going to have to take credit for everything your team does.

Then again if you want to use your brain and think like a rational person then that's a different story.

CONGRATULATIONS!!
The Strawman post of the year goes to....​

 

[BlindBoo]

So go make a movie.

Holy fuck crying about the dumbest shit.

well...in all fairness...when the media makes a big deal over something Romney did as a teenager....but doesnt touch the fact that Obama did drugs as a teenager.....

I really dont see crying over media bias as crying over the dumbest shit.

Whether the media asissts Obama OR Romeny in getting elected is irrelevant.....but for them to help decide the election? That is a major issue.

Exactly.
Anyone who thinks when media bias gets to the point they collectively and uniformly provide coverage to help one candidate win is a non-issue - is obviously someone who supports that candidate also.
And that makes them a tool

Sounds just like Faux News.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nice try, but no dice

Sure... my "team" made a movie you don't like, your "team" bombed a federal building. If you want to lump everyone as either for you or against you, you are going to have to take credit for everything your team does.

Then again if you want to use your brain and think like a rational person then that's a different story.

Yes, Bill Ayers bombed The Pentagon, but what does that have to do with me?
He is Obama's friend not mine...

Jewish extremist bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing 28 Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews and 5 others. Like the Weather Underground they phoned in a warning but unlike the Brithish, who were occupying parts of the King David, the Pentagon personal did listen and evacutated and no one was killed or injured.

We still pal-around with Israel don't we?

 

[Jarhead]

Sure... my "team" made a movie you don't like, your "team" bombed a federal building. If you want to lump everyone as either for you or against you, you are going to have to take credit for everything your team does.

Then again if you want to use your brain and think like a rational person then that's a different story.

Yes, Bill Ayers bombed The Pentagon, but what does that have to do with me?
He is Obama's friend not mine...

Jewish extremist bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing 28 Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews and 5 others. Like the Weather Underground they phoned in a warning but unlike the Brithish, who were occupying parts of the King David, the Pentagon personal did listen and evacutated and no one was killed or injured.

We still pal-around with Israel don't we?

huh?

Was it the Israeli government that did it? Or Jewsih extremists.

YHour analogy has way too many holes.

Curious...if it were found that Romney had friended Charles Manson 30 years after Manson was convicted of murder.....would you feel that was an indication of Romney's character?

 

[naturegirl]

Sure... my "team" made a movie you don't like, your "team" bombed a federal building. If you want to lump everyone as either for you or against you, you are going to have to take credit for everything your team does.

Then again if you want to use your brain and think like a rational person then that's a different story.

Yes, Bill Ayers bombed The Pentagon, but what does that have to do with me?
He is Obama's friend not mine...

Jewish extremist bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing 28 Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews and 5 others. Like the Weather Underground they phoned in a warning but unlike the Brithish, who were occupying parts of the King David, the Pentagon personal did listen and evacutated and no one was killed or injured.

We still pal-around with Israel don't we?

Hmmm doesn't Obama pal around with Ayers?? Or was that just when Ayers worked for Mayor Daley??

 

[RDD_1210]

Nice try, but no dice

Sure... my "team" made a movie you don't like, your "team" bombed a federal building. If you want to lump everyone as either for you or against you, you are going to have to take credit for everything your team does.

Then again if you want to use your brain and think like a rational person then that's a different story.

CONGRATULATIONS!!
The Strawman post of the year goes to....​

Someone just outed themselves as not understanding the meaning of the term strawman. Well done.

 

[RDD_1210]

Let me ask you this....would that information been relevant to you during the pr4imary season?

In other words, wouldnt you have liked to have known if he had mediocre grades? Would you have liked to know that his entrance to Columbia was based on race and not grades? (if that was the case)

Sure, during the primary season it would have been nice to know. However I don't vote based upon school grades, I vote based upon a persons position. I didn't care about McCains grades or the fact that he was a POW, it was his positions that made me not want to vote for him.

At this point though, whats the point of this? Impeachment? Stubborn refusal to let it go?

Huh?
Impeachemtn?
Refusal to let go?

Excuse me....but we are going through the vetting process.....remember? An election coming up?

McCains positions are irrelevant.

However, Obamas positions are ONLY relevant to you if he is honest with his positions...so how can you trell if he is honest or just saying what you want to hear?

You examine his character...you see who he admires.....you review his past...and see how he has evolved over the years.

Yet you seem to want to minimize the importance of character and ONLY base your decision on what he CLAIMS to be his positions.

Thats what makes America great. That works for you and youy can do it.

You make good points, I am just tired of the constant focus on things that truly don't matter. I get what you're saying though. I just wonder how many other presidential candidates who were supposedly "vetted properly" had their college transcripts and birth certificates harped on continuously. Did people care about these things before? I really don't think so.

 

[Jarhead]

Sure, during the primary season it would have been nice to know. However I don't vote based upon school grades, I vote based upon a persons position. I didn't care about McCains grades or the fact that he was a POW, it was his positions that made me not want to vote for him.

At this point though, whats the point of this? Impeachment? Stubborn refusal to let it go?

Huh?
Impeachemtn?
Refusal to let go?

Excuse me....but we are going through the vetting process.....remember? An election coming up?

McCains positions are irrelevant.

However, Obamas positions are ONLY relevant to you if he is honest with his positions...so how can you trell if he is honest or just saying what you want to hear?

You examine his character...you see who he admires.....you review his past...and see how he has evolved over the years.

Yet you seem to want to minimize the importance of character and ONLY base your decision on what he CLAIMS to be his positions.

Thats what makes America great. That works for you and youy can do it.

You make good points, I am just tired of the constant focus on things that truly don't matter. I get what you're saying though. I just wonder how many other presidential candidates who were supposedly "vetted properly" had their college transcripts and birth certificates harped on continuously. Did people care about these things before? I really don't think so.

Actually....it is based on the history of the candidate.

For example...McCain was in politics for a quarter of a century. His voting record for nearly 3 decades was publoic record. His positions were true and proven. His intelligence was true and proven...or disproven...depending on who you are. His honesty was true and proven. His citizenship was never in question as he did not have a father of another nationality nor did he write a book where he discussed his childhood in another country.

Obama on the other hand, with a totla of 4 uears in public office and only 1 1/2 on the national stage had a 95% "party line" voting record as a state senator and the same as a US senator....with the remaining 5% being "present"...... He had no "accomplishments" of record as an author of bills of major local OR national importance. He had a very short private sector career that inclused ONLY 3 years with a law firm where he was never offered partnership or junior partnership. He had a father of a foreign nationality, an aunt who was an admitted undocumented immigrant. No one came out and admitted knowing him well in college and he was the first Harvard Law Review top honcho to NOT author anything....

So when a virtual unknown enters the race for the highest political position in the land, he or she should do ALL THEY CAN to let people see who they are....what they are about.....how well they did academically...

Yet he resisted...and no one cared.

 

[MikeK]

So did I. What is your point ? (other than the one on your head)

The media went as far as making a movie about Boooosh and his drinking when he was in college.
The media completely ignored Obama doing the same.
That is a pretty good point.

So go make a movie.

Holy fuck crying about the dumbest shit.

It's not dumb. Obama's hypocrisy with regard to marijuana is an extremely important indication of his personal character and there is nothing trivial about it.

Lives are ruined every day because of the Draconian prohibition of marijuana and a significant percentage of our excessive prison population is the direct result of these unnecessary laws. Yet this man, who openly and blithely admits to having used marijuana and has the power to do something about the wrongful prohibition, refuses to even discuss the issue.

 

[naturegirl]

Huh?
Impeachemtn?
Refusal to let go?

Excuse me....but we are going through the vetting process.....remember? An election coming up?

McCains positions are irrelevant.

However, Obamas positions are ONLY relevant to you if he is honest with his positions...so how can you trell if he is honest or just saying what you want to hear?

You examine his character...you see who he admires.....you review his past...and see how he has evolved over the years.

Yet you seem to want to minimize the importance of character and ONLY base your decision on what he CLAIMS to be his positions.

Thats what makes America great. That works for you and youy can do it.

You make good points, I am just tired of the constant focus on things that truly don't matter. I get what you're saying though. I just wonder how many other presidential candidates who were supposedly "vetted properly" had their college transcripts and birth certificates harped on continuously. Did people care about these things before? I really don't think so.

Actually....it is based on the history of the candidate.

For example...McCain was in politics for a quarter of a century. His voting record for nearly 3 decades was publoic record. His positions were true and proven. His intelligence was true and proven...or disproven...depending on who you are. His honesty was true and proven. His citizenship was never in question as he did not have a father of another nationality nor did he write a book where he discussed his childhood in another country.

Obama on the other hand, with a totla of 4 uears in public office and only 1 1/2 on the national stage had a 95% "party line" voting record as a state senator and the same as a US senator....with the remaining 5% being "present"...... He had no "accomplishments" of record as an author of bills of major local OR national importance. He had a very short private sector career that inclused ONLY 3 years with a law firm where he was never offered partnership or junior partnership. He had a father of a foreign nationality, an aunt who was an admitted undocumented immigrant. No one came out and admitted knowing him well in college and he was the first Harvard Law Review top honcho to NOT author anything....

So when a virtual unknown enters the race for the highest political position in the land, he or she should do ALL THEY CAN to let people see who they are....what they are about.....how well they did academically...

Yet he resisted...and no one cared.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Sure... my "team" made a movie you don't like, your "team" bombed a federal building. If you want to lump everyone as either for you or against you, you are going to have to take credit for everything your team does.

Then again if you want to use your brain and think like a rational person then that's a different story.

CONGRATULATIONS!!
The Strawman post of the year goes to....​

Someone just outed themselves as not understanding the meaning of the term strawman. Well done.

Seriously?
So I see someone just outed themselves as not understanding the term strawman by saying someone else doesn't understand strawman.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

 

[RDD_1210]

CONGRATULATIONS!!
The Strawman post of the year goes to....​

Someone just outed themselves as not understanding the meaning of the term strawman. Well done.

Seriously?
So I see someone just outed themselves as not understanding the term strawman by saying someone else doesn't understand strawman.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

Now apply that to what I said. Which part of what I said created a strawman?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The left on here often call me a drunk which is funny for several reasons.

1. I seldom drink when posting and don't drink enough to be drunk hardly ever.

2. Obama brags about it and is admired for it for some stupid reason.

 

[GoneBezerk]

We already knew that.....because you're a fucking mouth-breathing idiot.

So did I. What is your point ? (other than the one on your head)