Is Obama A Liberal?

[preservanation]

Yes
No

[PostmodernProphet]

???....this needs a poll?......

[Osborn F. Enready]

Obama is not a "Liberal" in the classical sense, no.

Obama IS a progressive, a socialist sympatico, an authoritarian, but far from a "liberal" in the classic sense.

Obama is as much a "classical liberal" as Bush is a "classic conservative"...... not at all.

[preservanation]

Good point O!
See how these labels are hard to pin down?
A classic con is much different than a neo-con.
Likewise with liberal.

I would argue that neo-liberalism can be defined as you did.Obama IS a progressive, a socialist sympatico, an authoritarian, but far from a "liberal" in the classic sense.

Man, it gets to be that one has to write a paragraph to even conduct a poll on political ideological issues now.
I know that Obama doesn't describe himself as a lib...I wonder if he's splitting hairs along the lines that you pointed out, in order to appeal to Indies and Moderates?

[preservanation]

Semantics aside, I think everyone knows what modern liberalism entails.
Let's cut through the bullcrap. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html
I know it's long, but it's all worthwhile.
Obama had greater role on liberal survey
By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 3/31/08 4:35 AM EST Text Size:

But the questionnaires provide fodder to question BarackObama’s ideological consistency and electability.

During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion — positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign.

The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.

Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.

They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize his position.”

But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.

The two questionnaires, provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama’s presidential campaign, were later supplied directly by the group, Independent Voters of Illinois — Independent Precinct Organization. Obama and his then-campaign manager, who Obama’s campaign asserts filled out the questionnaires, were familiar with the group, its members and its positions, since both were active in it before Obama's 1996 state Senate run.

Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved — or even read — the latter questionnaire.

“Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires — a staffer did — and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now,” Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said in an e-mailed statement. “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn't change the fact that some answers didn't reflect his views. His 11 years in public office do.”

But the questionnaires provide fodder to question Obama’s ideological consistency and electability. Those questions are central to efforts by Obama’s presidential rival Hillary Clinton to woo the superdelegates whose votes represent her best chance to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama.

Taken together — and combined with later policy pronouncements — the two 1996 questionnaires paint a picture of an inexperienced Obama still trying to feel his way around major political issues and less constrained by the nuance that now frames his positions on sensitive issues.

Consider the question of whether minors should be required to get parental consent — or at least notify their parents — before having abortion.

The first version of Obama’s questionnaire responds with a simple “No.”

The amended version, though, answers less stridently: “Depends on how young — possibly for extremely young teens, i.e., 12- or 13-year-olds.”

By 2004, when his campaign filled out a similar questionnaire for the IVI-IPO during his campaign for U.S. Senate, the answer to a similar question contained still more nuance, but also more precision. “I would oppose any legislation that does not include a bypass provision for minors who have been victims of, or have reason to fear, physical or sexual abuse,” he wrote.

The evolution continued at least through late last year, when his campaign filled out a questionnaire for a nonpartisan reproductive health group that answered a similar question with even more nuance.

“As a parent, Obama believes that young women, if they become pregnant, should talk to their parents before considering an abortion. But he realizes not all girls can turn to their mother or father in times of trouble, and in those instances, we should want these girls to seek the advice of trusted adults — an aunt, a grandmother, a pastor,” his campaign wrote to RH Reality Check.

Unfortunately, instead of encouraging pregnant teens to seek the advice of adults, most parental consent bills that come before Congress or state legislatures criminalize adults who attempt to help a young woman in need and lack judicial bypass and other provisions that would permit exceptions in compelling cases.”

Both versions of the 1996 questionnaires provide answers his presidential campaign disavows to questions about whether Obama supports capital punishment and state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”

He responded simply “No” and “Yes,” respectively, to those questions on both questionnaires.

But a fact sheet provided by his campaign flatly denies Obama ever held those views, asserting he “consistently supported the death penalty for certain crimes but backed a moratorium until problems were fixed.” And it points out that as a state senator, he led an effort to reform Illinois’ death penalty laws.

On guns, the fact sheet says he “has consistently supported common-sense gun control, as well as the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

After Politico’s story on the first questionnaire, Clinton aides seized on the handgun-ban answer in particular, which a campaign press release asserted called into question Obama’s electability.

That was a curious argument to make in a Democratic primary. But Republicans will certainly seek to make it in the general election if Obama is the Democratic standard-bearer against the presumptive GOP nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

It could also provide ammunition for a line of attack quietly peddled for some time by Republicans. They allege Obama has a penchant for blaming his staff for gaffes ranging from missing a union event in New Hampshire to circulating opposition research highlighting the Clintons’ ties to India and Indian-Americans to underestimating the amount of cash bundled for his campaigns by his former fundraiser, indicted businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

And the questionnaires play into storylines pushed by both Republicans and Clinton suggesting Obama has altered his views to appeal to differing audiences.

That suggestion is galling to many members of IVI-IPO, some of whom have relationships with Obama that date back nearly 15 years. The group had endorsed Obama in every race he’d run — including his failed long-shot 2000 primary challenge to U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) — until now.

The group’s 37-member board of directors, meeting last year soon after Obama distanced himself from the first questionnaire, stalemated in its vote over an endorsement in the Democratic presidential primary. Forty percent supported Obama, 40 percent sided with Clinton and 20 percent voted for other candidates or not to endorse.

“One big issue was: Does he or does he not believe the stuff he told us in 1996?” said Aviva Patt, who has been involved with the IVI-IPO since 1990 and is now the group’s treasurer. She volunteered for Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, but voted to endorse the since-aborted presidential campaign of Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and professed disappointment over Obama’s retreat from ownership of the questionnaire.

“I always believed those to be his views,” she said, adding some members of the board argued that Obama’s 1996 answers were “what he really believes in, and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate.”


It’s more benign than that, contended fellow board member Lois Dobry, who voted to endorse Obama last year and hosted the 1996 interview session at her home.

That “was a long time ago,” she said. “And anybody who hasn’t refined their ideas over that period of time ... is not anybody I’m interested in,” she said. Dobry asserted Obama’s views have evolved mostly at the margins and that he’s still the same person she met in the 1990s.

“He always was right from the start very, very clear on where he was coming from on most issues,” she said, “and he certainly wasn’t letting anybody else decide that for him.”

Dobry, Patt and current IVI-IPO state chairman David K. Igasaki, a Clinton supporter, agreed Obama likely didn’t write every word of his campaign’s 1996 answers. But they all dismissed as unbelievable his presidential campaign’s assertion that Obama never saw or signed off on the state Senate questionnaires.

Campaigns are routinely bombarded with all manner of questionnaires from advocacy groups of every stripe, so it’s not uncommon to have staffers fill them out in candidates’ names. But usually there’s some process by which the answers are vetted to insure consistency with the candidates’ views.

And there were plenty of reasons to believe that occurred in the case of Obama’s 1996 IVI-IPO questionnaire.

The group was very influential in Obama’s South Side district. It also was a leader on government reform issues, which Obama has made a centerpiece of his political persona.

He and his campaign manager, Carol Harwell, were both active with the IVI-IPO prior to his candidacy, and they had once helped interview candidates seeking the group’s endorsement, according to Igasaki.

Dobry called Harwell “an extremely experienced person, also someone highly familiar with IVI. And she would know perfectly well that the candidate would have to answer questions based on these answers and to suddenly have the candidate discover that somebody else had written answers that they were in no way in agreement with would be pretty embarrassing, right?”

Harwell, a veteran Democratic operative who got her start working for the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington in the 1980s and who now works for Cook County Clerk David Orr, last year told Politico she filled out the first questionnaire.

But she did not return several telephone messages asking about the second questionnaire and the handwritten notes on it.

They appear under a question asking candidates to “list all endorsements you have received so far.” In typed text that matches that of the rest of the answers, both of Obama’s questionnaires list four local Democratic organizations and two aldermen. But the latter questionnaire adds to that with handwritten notes listing another 10 endorsements, including an Illinois seniors group, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, IBEW and unions representing nurses and firefighters.

Igasaki said Obama was shoo-in for the IVI-IPO endorsement, but that it was important to have a strong showing because “our chapter basically was his field operation. ... Those people were already working for him, and it was important for him to identify with us.”

Patt, though, conceded the inevitability of the group’s endorsement could have led Harwell to be “less than 100 percent careful” in filling out the questionnaire, “because it probably didn’t matter that much at the time. It’s only in the context that it’s now found that has much greater importance than anyone could have imagined it would back in 1996.”
So either way, he is a modern lib or a liar. One or the other.

This guy, Obama, will be savaged by the Right in Nov if he gets the nomination, even if McCain won't do it.
Ever hear of 527s??
Cotton candy on a stick.

What's so bad about being a lib anyway?
It used to be a virtue.
What happened?

[Troubadour]

Obama is not a "Liberal" in the classical sense, no.


He is a liberal in the only sense - he supports liberty and opposes authoritarianism.


Obama IS a progressive


Redundant. Liberalism and progressivism are two dimensions of the same underlying phenomenon. Fascists laugh at the libertarian idea of freedom - an anarchic vacuum into which any dictator can just waltz and create their own despotic gangster kingdom. Too much libertarianism is just sock-puppetry for conservatives who use it to weaken the legitimate government that keeps their treasonous ambitions in check.


a socialist sympatico


I.e., he supports progressive taxation. Horror of horrors.


an authoritarian


Now you've descended into Newspeak, associating liberalism with its own negation.


but far from a "liberal" in the classic sense.


In the Orwellian, Confederate slaveholder sense that defines "liberty" as the absence of governmental forms. I wouldn't call that "classic."


Obama is as much a "classical liberal" as Bush is a "classic conservative"...... not at all.


Bush is a conservative, and Obama is a liberal. Their actions reflect their values, not some 18th century commentator's political classification scheme.

[nevadamedic]

Obama Bin Laden is A=a Liberal Muslim.


All proper names of political figures should be spelled correctly

[firefox]

I voted for "not" for the reasons Osborne laid out. BTW, nevadamedic, if you are Eagle, you should be beyond these kinds of ad hominem attacks.

[Buck Laser]

Libertians just LOVE the idea of "classic liberals," I guess because it gives them some distant Golden Age as a point of reference. But in any kind of current assessment, Senator Obama stands as a liberal.

Compared to politicians on the world stage, my guess is that he'd be barely to the left of center. Of course, we Americans have this habit of thinking that the US is the only nation that matters, so we don't give much thought to our place in the world.

It's sorta like when I was a kid and taking Texas history in school: I figured I was even luckier to be born in TX than I was to be born in the US. By the way, I've never cared to renounce either: it's just that as I grew taller, I learned to see a little farther.

[AlanC]

"Is Obama a liberal?"

May as well ask -

Is the Pope Catholic?

Is Teddy Kennedy an alcoholic?

Is Hillary a liar?

Does it get hotter in the summer time?

Do people actually do pointless and meaningless polls?

[preservanation]

Most think Obama is a lib and holds progressive views.
In the questionnaire he supports gun control by banning all handguns, abortion for teens without parental consent, and opposes the death penalty. So what???
These have been main platforms on the left for decades.

Why does his camp then release this???
“Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires — a staffer did — and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now,” Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said in an e-mailed statement. “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn't change the fact that some answers didn't reflect his views. His 11 years in public office do.” Why is he embarassed and denies common views of the people who's votes he is courting?
Wolf in sheep's clothing?
This is confusing to me.

[nevadamedic]

Most think Obama is a lib and holds progressive views.
In the questionnaire he supports gun control by banning all handguns, abortion for teens without parental consent, and opposes the death penalty. So what???
These have been main platforms on the left for decades.

Why does his camp then release this???
“Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires — a staffer did — and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now,” Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said in an e-mailed statement. “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn't change the fact that some answers didn't reflect his views. His 11 years in public office do.” Why is he embarassed and denies common views of the people who's votes he is courting?
Wolf in sheep's clothing?
This is confusing to me.


Nothing to be confused about, every thing out of this man's (and I use that word lightly) mouth is BS.

[preservanation]

His voters are followers more than supporters.
IMO, he will be easier to beat than Hillary.
Cotton candy on a paper stick

Once the buzz wears off and Moderates and Independents take a serious look at him and how bad a POTUS he will make they might go for McCain.

[nevadamedic]

His voters are followers more than supporters.
IMO, he will be easier to beat than Hillary.
Cotton candy on a paper stick

Once the buzz wears off and Moderates and Independents take a serious look at him and how bad a POTUS he will make they might go for McCain.


Barack Hussein Obama is the Jim Jones of this decade.

[Troubadour]

Most think Obama is a lib and holds progressive views.


He is obviously liberal. What is the point of this poll?

[4Reaganomics]

His voters are followers more than supporters.
IMO, he will be easier to beat than Hillary.
Cotton candy on a paper stick

Once the buzz wears off and Moderates and Independents take a serious look at him and how bad a POTUS he will make they might go for McCain.


Barack Hussein Obama is the Jim Jones of this decade.


:lmao::lmao:

I could see him starting up a heaven's gate in a purple track suit as well

His following truly is cult like. People nodding their heads in unison claiming, "yes, yes, restrict me more, take more of my liberty that my predecessors fought and died for"

[lily]

IMO, he will be easier to beat than Hillary.


I'm not sure what you mean by this.......do you mean that it will be easier for McCain to beat Obama, than it would be for him to beat Hillary? If that's what you mean, then um.......he's beating Hillary, so wouldn't that mean he's kind of out of McCain's reach?

Troubadour wrote:
He is obviously liberal. What is the point of this poll?

Exactly.:thumbsup:

[preservanation]

Most think Obama is a lib and holds progressive views.


He is obviously liberal. What is the point of this poll?
So why are Obama and his campaign running away from this survey like their hair's on fire?
He should have been proud of his views back then and now. A lot of his supporters believe exact same thing
Why's he hiding?

[Troubadour]

So why are Obama and his campaign running away from this survey like their hair's on fire?


They're not. An aide filled out a position questionnaire, and Obama, determining that it didn't reflect his positions accurately enough, sought to qualify a handful of them and express his views in greater detail. If your friend tells me you're going to a pharmacy to buy aspirin, but in fact you're going to a supermarket to buy aspirin, your "failure" to conform with their claims does not mean you're "running from the pharmacy," or "ashamed of buying aspirin," or trying to be a "stealth pharmacy customer."


He should have been proud of his views back then and now.


He was and is. Why isn't John McCain?


A lot of his supporters believe exact same thing


And a lot of his supporters hold opposing views on some issues, but they're with him because of his honesty, strength, intelligence, and extraordinary talent for leadership. The only reason McCain has any support beyond registered Republicans is the long-discredited belief that he shares these traits - a belief easily dispelled in the general election. All the media's doing is trying to prolong the pleasure - they'd run out of headlines pretty fast if Obama just cruised into the White House, and they know that's probably what will happen when it's just he and McCain.


Why's he hiding?


He isn't. Why are you saying he is?

[ViolaLee]

If I'm a liberal, Obama's a liberal. And it sure will be great to have a liberal in the WH! A liberal who believes in liberty and freedom and the laws of our constitution. 1/2/09 will be a day of great celebration when he wins in November.

[apdst]

1/2/09 will be a day of great celebration when he wins in November.

It's sad to think that you don't know how wrong you are.

[ViolaLee]

1/2/09 will be a day of great celebration when he wins in November.

It's sad to think that you don't know how wrong you are.

I'm sad for you, if you don't know how correct I am. :innocent:

[Troubadour]

1/2/09 will be a day of great celebration when he wins in November.


There will be two simultaneous celebrations, each feeding back into and exponentiating the other: (1)Untergang (German for "downfall") - the end of The Regime. Though technically not until January, it will have already occurred in the minds of the citizenry. Not since the fall of the Berlin Wall will more people around the world breathe deeply and say, with awed emotion, "finally." And (2)Renaissance - the first president in 3 generations that Americans can actually believe in and admire. For the first time since Kennedy, if not Roosevelt, the world's most powerful nation will have a president representing all the best in humanity. The reaction will be worldwide, unanimous, and (if you'll pardon the expression) orgasmic. Tremble, Republicans. Tremble in your little silk-lined jackboots. You will know the meaning of "perfect storm" before the year is out.

[preservanation]

1/2/09 will be a day of great celebration when he wins in November.


There will be two simultaneous celebrations, each feeding back into and exponentiating the other: (1)Untergang (German for "downfall") - the end of The Regime. Though technically not until January, it will have already occurred in the minds of the citizenry. Not since the fall of the Berlin Wall will more people around the world breathe deeply and say, with awed emotion, "finally." And (2)Renaissance - the first president in 3 generations that Americans can actually believe in and admire. For the first time since Kennedy, if not Roosevelt, the world's most powerful nation will have a president representing all the best in humanity. The reaction will be worldwide, unanimous, and (if you'll pardon the expression) orgasmic. Tremble, Republicans. Tremble in your little silk-lined jackboots. You will know the meaning of "perfect storm" before the year is out.
Awesome!
Great post.
I would love to use this as my signature, but its too long.
Maybe if I just inserted a candy-striped beanie with a propeller on top, people will make the connection.

[brien]

According to the National Journal:

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

It goes on to point out:


The ratings system -- devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal -- also assigns "composite" scores, an average of the members' issue-based scores. In 2007, Obama's composite liberal score of 95.5 was the highest in the Senate.

So according to the prevailing scholarly ratings, it seems Obama is one of the most "liberal" Senators in the nation.

[brien]

For the first time since Kennedy, if not Roosevelt, the world's most powerful nation will have a president representing all the best in humanity.

The above post is quite amusing. Such gushing is almost embarrasing. Either the poster is ignorant of JFK's true legacy, or he/she is simply loathe to admit it. Not to say Kennedy was the worst President, only that this "Camelot" myth he left behind is ridiculous. But, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

JFK:

Increased involvement of the US in Viet Nam
JFK & the Cold War
Precipitated the Bay of Pigs
Diddled away with Marilyn Monroe
Had ties to Cosa Nostra through the above
His father was a bootlegger in the 30's.

All the best in humanity. :madlaugh:

http://surftofind.com/monroe
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk5.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1961.html
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/baypigs/pigs.htm
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_159.html

[Buck Laser]

JFK:

Increased involvement of the US in Viet Nam
JFK & the Cold War
Precipitated the Bay of Pigs
Diddled away with Marilyn Monroe
Had ties to Cosa Nostra through the above
His father was a bootlegger in the 30's.

All the best in humanity. :madlaugh:


Interesting list you've got there. But:
JFK initiated talks for the nuclear arms test ban treaty.
He took full blame for the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Marilyn Monroe? Hell, he was a sex addict. So what?
So his old man was a bootlegger...so what? JFK wasn't, unless you're one of those guilt by association people.

In addition, he got the civil rights ball rolling, although he didn't live to see its passage. He proved that a Roman Catholic can be president without being subservient to Rome. He made the first official commitment to going to the moon.

He may not have been the BEST, but he was better than you or me. :shame:

[Troubadour]

Maybe if I just inserted a candy-striped beanie with a propeller on top, people will make the connection.


McCain supporters wear different headgear.

http://www.helmetsetc.com/images/helmets/specialty/nov_kaiser.gif


Such gushing is almost embarrasing.


I would agree, if it weren't warranted. Fortunately it is.


Either the poster is ignorant of JFK's true legacy, or he/she is simply loathe to admit it.


The Kennedy legacy, in a single image:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0201/earthrise_apollo8.jpg

See that blue thing? Human beings still exist on it because Kennedy told LeMay to shove it when the generals and their Republican fellow-travelers demanded a preemptive attack on Cuba. See that gray thing? American flags rest beside American footprints and American technology on its surface because he committed to doing it - the greatest achievement in the history of life on Earth, that will be remembered of the United States and Kennedy long after everything else about this country is forgotten. I see similar potential in Obama.


Not to say Kennedy was the worst President, only that this "Camelot" myth he left behind is ridiculous.


And the habit of some to see accurate assessments of extraordinary people as some kind of deification is equally ridiculous.


But, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one.


And apparently some people have two.


Increased involvement of the US in Viet Nam


Sent advisors. Whoop-dee-doo.


Precipitated the Bay of Pigs


Inherited the operation from Eisenhower and failed to stop it.


Diddled away with Marilyn Monroe


Good for him. :clapper:


Had ties to Cosa Nostra through the above


His father had ties to Cosa Nostra - JFK had none, unless you count Frank Sinatra.


His father was a bootlegger in the 30's.


When John was in high school. Very clever rebuttal, Brien.


All the best in humanity. :madlaugh:


Yes. The best people are still people.

[David]

Obama is a social democrat, not a liberal.

[Buck Laser]

Obama is a social democrat, not a liberal.
We don't have a social democratic party in the US. Obama is a slightly left of center democrat.

[David]

We don't have a social democratic party in the US. Obama is a slightly left of center democrat.

And are all libertarians members of the Libertarian Party? Party membership or lack thereof =/= personal ideology. I don't belong to any political parties, but parties that have platforms that reflect my views exist. Just because I don't associate myself with them doesn't mean that I'm not one of them from an ideological point of view.

Just because Obama is a card holding member of a mainstream liberal/conservative party doesn't make him one himself. It makes him someone who is using party name recognition to get noticed. Ron Paul was/is using the same tactic with the Republican Party.

[AnnEsthesia]

Good question David. I am a card carrying Democrat, but my beliefs and ideals run the gambit from liberal to conservative. The labels people use really are too narrow sighted. People are much more complex than we give them credit for being.

[ViolaLee]

Right on Ann. Obama is a liberal on somethings, I'm sure. But he's an American first and foremost and his objective is to unite us.

United we stand, divided we fall. We've been divided for way too long.

[preservanation]

Right on Ann. Obama is a liberal on somethings, I'm sure. But he's an American first and foremost and his objective is to unite us.

United we stand, divided we fall. We've been divided for way too long.Hi, VL.
Luvya!

Obama is not going to unite anything.
If anything is for sure he will divide us.
His and Michelle's roots are in Black Separatism.

The divisiveness has come from some who call the POTUS Hitler and our troops babykillers.
Get real.

[David]

preservanation, Obama is a white man as much as he is a black man. True the media ignores this, but Obama isn't exactly America's Mugabe. ;)

So don't worry about a Black uprising oppressing you. :lmao:

[brien]

The poster wrote: Sent advisors. Whoop-dee-doo.

I write: You apparently don't know your history. You may want to try and read the link on how he widened the war.

The poster wrote: Inherited the operation from Eisenhower and failed to stop it.


I write: Once again, you don't know your history. You may want to read the link I provided.

The poster wrote: When John was in high school

I write: So if any common bootlegger from the 30's, like Al Capone, Dutch Shultz, Frank Costello, or the like, had a child who became president, you would think the same? Dirty money is dirty money. The Kennedy Family admiration is highly misplaced when adding up the morals and legitimacy in the family. But heh, if you want to admire people like that, so be it. Camelot, crime, and fairy tales...that says it all.

[brien]

The poster wrote: Sent advisors. Whoop-dee-doo.

I write: You apparently don't know your history. You may want to try and read the link on how he widened the war.

The poster wrote: Inherited the operation from Eisenhower and failed to stop it.


I write: Once again, you don't know your history. You may want to read the link I provided.

The poster wrote: When John was in high school

I write: So if any common bootlegger from the 30's, like Al Capone, Dutch Shultz, Frank Costello, or the like, had a child who became president, you would think the same? Dirty money is dirty money. The Kennedy Family admiration is highly misplaced when adding up the morals and legitimacy in the family. But heh, if you want to admire people like that, so be it. Camelot, crime, and fairy tales...that says it all.

[DamnYankee]

Right on Ann. Obama is a liberal on somethings, I'm sure. But he's an American first and foremost and his objective is to unite us.

United we stand, divided we fall. We've been divided for way too long.

Barak Hussein Obama isn't going to unite jack. He's an extremist liberal and will do nothing than further alienate anyone that doesn't buy into his socialist policies.

[David]

Barak Hussein Obama isn't going to unite jack. He's an extremist liberal and will do nothing than further alienate anyone that doesn't buy into his socialist policies.

Good god man. Liberals by definition are capitalists. How can a capitalist be a socialist?

Why do I always end up debating Righties that don't use logic?